The announcement was an effort by Mr. Trump to honor his campaign pledge to end Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, while avoiding an immediate termination of protections and work permits for the so-called “dreamers,” many of whom have lived in the United States since they were small children.As Trump put it in his tweet: "Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!"
It is Congress's job, and whether Obama should have picked up the slack for Congress or not, he did, and that's the situation Trump inherited. Trump made a strategic move, and people will say it's cruel, even as Obama was kind, but that's nothing new for Trump.
ADDED: Last June, we were discussing a NYT article with the headline "Trump Will Allow ‘Dreamers’ to Stay in U.S., Reversing Campaign Promise." (The headline has changed since then.) My post was titled "Did he really ever promise?" I said:
The link goes to the NYT, where I imagine them getting any news about Trump and thinking: Trump did it... why is it bad?I said: "I never believed he'd deport 'Dreamers'" — and I still don't. Here are the results of a poll I did back in June when the issue was Trump breaking what was perceived as a campaign promise:
This is a case of Trump doing something that policy-wise is what the NYT wants. But Trump did it, so why is it bad? Trump broke a promise!
I still don't think the "Dreamers" will be deported. That's not what ending Obama's program means.
पोस्ट्स
२९३ टिप्पण्या:
293 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Trump comes off as shrewd. Congress will have to no actually make immigration law. Only the safest of seats are dead certain of where they stand on immigration. Polling will be intense.
Pens and phones can change hands. Had the authoritarian Obama chosen to work with Congress and actually make some compromises, he could have made this law that Trump couldn't reverse so easily. I guess it looks like we are going back to the black letter law as passed by both houses of Congress and signed at the time by the duly elected President.
I was sort of surprised to learn that the United States and Canada are the only developed countries that grant birthright citizenship to tourists even, and illegal aliens. I was assured that this was not the case and any move to reverse it would be barbarism of the worst sort.
"and people will say it's cruel, even as Obama was kind, but that's nothing new for Trump."
And the executive order by Constitutional scholar Obama was very likely UN-constitutional...
But that's just splitting hairs, right? It's all about the FEELZ.
Imagine that, deferring to what actually passed Congress on matters of law!! He's gone rogue!!!
The reason we are here today, is that McCain and all the other Senators For Life, have ignored immigration, and our laws have not been modernized since the civil war.
Congress, get ready to do your job
Wait, you mean an American President is not King?
" .....even as Obama was kind ...."
Liberals are always kind when it's other peoples money, property or rights.
Punt but can they catch and deliver? I doubt.
Wait, you mean an American President is not King?
Obama's ego hardest hit!!
One of the unintended consequences of the shit storm that the press and Dems have thrown at Trump is that he now knows he will ever get a fair shake or any kind of cooperation from either. So he might as well say "damn the torpedo's" and plow forward with his agenda in his most uncompromising way.
Dems and MSM might like this Trump even less than the old one. But I'm guessing many others will like the new Trump even more.
Worrying about special legislation for the "dreamers" should be secondary to passing an overall framework immigration law aimed at what we want to eventually get to.
Brutal effects of Trump's racist immigration policies.
Outstanding, although I believe the six months leaves room for negotiation over border wall funding and E-Verify.
My Republican Congresswoman is a fan of open borders and DACA, and I'm getting deluged by increasingly desperate letters trying to raise money for 2018. Well, she's got a choice: appease the wealthy people in the eastern end of her district (median price of homes in Great Falls, VA, is $988,500), who want ever cheaper nannies and maids and guys to mow their multi-acre estates, but who are Democrat-voting limousine liberals, or align her views on DACA with the middle class voters at the center and west ends of her district. I think she's going to flub it.
First thing that should be done is to require every illegal to register within 6 months so we have a good handle on whether there are 10 million or 30 million illegals. If you don't register, you will be subject to immediate deportation.
people will say it's cruel, even as Obama was kind
It's far easier to be "kind" when you have virtually nothing to lose and everything to gain. The greatly privileged progressives in the main stream media, Hollywood, and in politics get to virtue signal about how mean spirited Trump and the Republicans are. It costs them pretty much nothing. It's not a hard position to take. They're far removed from any negative impacts to the economy excessive illegal immigration causes. Their privilege affords them obliviousness.
They also get to tut-tut about all those poor white Trump-voting rubes in flyover country. About how racist and xenophobic they are About how simple minded, parochial, provincial they are. They get that quick guilt-free burst of dopamine that comes with realizing your moral superiority.
I'm sick of terms like "dreamers"
If the parents are not here legally, the children are not here legally.
As Ann -and the guys at "Powerline" - note Trump has put this decision where it belongs; in the hands of the Congress. Give Trump another year and he might actually get some work out of those bozos.
It was easier for Obama to be kind to some and ruthlessly put the shaft to others, who see their wages surpassed by cheap competition that can't stand up for their rights. It's almost as if he had a plan that had nothing to do with kindness and everything to do with creating a one-party state.
I could write that off as conspiracy theory if Democrats didn't keep drooling about it.
http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams
Terrible Trump promised more than RINO Ryan was willing to deliver. Now the Psychotic Orange Clown has actually doubled down and handed the DACA Bomb off to Benedict Arnold Ryan with a ticking timer.
Syria and ISIS has already been fixed with a Putin deal. Climate Hoax Deals are dead. Now we can watch the Korean re-unification with Red Chinese blessings. And Iran comes next.
The speed of Trumpian changes is accelerating.
"Punt but can they catch and deliver? I doubt."
Then democracy worked exactly as intended. What a welcome change that will be.
@R?V Do you really think the Dems are not going to participate in this? Can't you imagine the hit they'll take with one of their favored constituencies if they play "just say no!" to anything the R's propose? Unless something passes Congress DACA will be dead and all those kids will be eligible to be deported - and it will be the Dems' fault.
You're right, Ann. Dreamers will not be deported. This is about rule of law being followed. And Congress claims it has too full a schedule to deal with this issue, as if they've ever been busy doing anything but getting themselves re-elected.
The speed of Trumpian changes is accelerating
People laugh when they say he is playing 11 dimensional chess. Actually, all he is doing is noticing things the press and liberals in general refuse to acknowledge, and acting on realities. Kind of like a businessman does who needs to succeed.
heartless bastard!
If the parents are not here legally, the children are not here legally.
It's a mere technicality, that the child was not born here. The parents have always required a visa, but the child exiting the womb/birth canal was an instant citizen.
We can modify the Jus Soli common law, and say that a child from the womb, to pre-school age, is a citizen.
Once the child enters a US accredited school, it should receive all rights as a citizen.
Either that, or get rid of Jus Soli and birthright citizenship.
I'm not sure it's a "punt" to hand over to Congress an issue that is rightly Congresses. It's handing back power that Obama usurped from Congress. He should have been impeached for that alone.
heartless bastard
You know what is "heartless" Sunsong, doing everything that feels good until your citizens are pushing money around in wheelbarrows, civil society breaks down, and war breaks out as a solution. That's fucking heartless. Chaves was heartless, look what he has done to Venezuela with his "good intentions."
@Tim in VT Your "brutal effects...." link is really confusing. You mean to say that the facts belie the "narrative"?!? OMG!!!
(But seriously, it's a great link! Thanks.)
No, we can't have mass deportations. Finesse an exit of this, "path to citizenship" etc.
But, geez, trade something for it! Get something. Start with The Wall and bargain from there.
"Trump starts Act 2 far weaker than in Act 1 - it's like Act 4 in the movies: when things look darkest. But he has made no allies (no magic women spirits or other warriors - Putin can't help him here). This is a classic case of hubris-nemesis."
Ted Williams
Playing politics with people's lives. The one thing I find is a lot of people opposed to DACA don't reaaly understand how it works, what it takes to qualify and how it is more a benefit to society than having these children uneducated and doing nothing. Congress should be the ones to make law on this but it's a gamble that many will use to hammer Republicans and Trump. Time will tell. But again, playing politucs with people's lives. So easy for politicians....
So any second now some judge somewhere will stay Trump from enforcing existing immigration law because the constitution just does not matter any more...
Blogger AJ Lynch said...
First thing that should be done is to require every illegal to register within 6 months so we have a good handle on whether there are 10 million or 30 million illegals. If you don't register, you will be subject to immediate deportation.
Good idea! Will the illegals in California be able to use their voter registration cards for ID?
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
I'm sick of terms like "dreamers"
If the parents are not here legally, the children are not here legally.
Imagine how much good these valuable, hard-working citizens could do in their native lands! Let them build their dreams in the land of their forefathers.
But that's just splitting hairs, right? It's all about the FEELZ.
Ha ha ha. You should really reconsider this hysterical argument that one side is all about REASON and the other (the cons usually, as here), is all about FEELZ. The shelf-life long ago expired on this with Trump's election. There ain't nothing reasonable about this administration and its acolytes.
@ Brookzene I thought Ted Williams- the "splendid splinter", old #9 - was in cryogenic storage. How'd you get a quote from him?
Trump comes off as shrewd. Congress will have to no actually make immigration law. Only the safest of seats are dead certain of where they stand on immigration. Polling will be intense.
It really does prod the lefties from their resistance safe bubble. They are accomplices if they insist on sitting on their hands.
Now I am going to shock the hell out of everybody and say that this is exactly the right move by Trump. (Or his advisors; but I think Presidents ought to get credit for accepting good advice from the advisors that those Presidents selected.)
And just as important, Trump gets a lot of credit for effectively moving the entire national debate on immigration. Such that the next Congressional debate on immigration will look a lot different from the last debate.
Expect a Senate filibuster. Let's push liberal Senate Dems to the wall on immigration. Make the Dems go to a governmental shutdown, over amnesty.
Some people may try to recall McCain and Rubio as defectors on the last Senate immigration debate. It is a debatable point. But that time was different, and the imperatives were different. And I think that Rubio in particular has changed.
Don't forget, Trumpkins; Rubio changing on immigration is far less dramatic than Trump's changes on abortion, health care, taxes and a dozen other issues.
I still don't think the "Dreamers" will be deported. That's not what ending Obama's program means.
I do hope you'll tell us what you think it really means. Twenty-five billion dollars (estimated 1.5 million "Dreamers" times an average of $17,000 cost per child) is a lot of money to pay for someone else's kids.
@ Brookzene I would think you would be ecstatic that Trump, not thinking himself to be king, has asked the commoners to actually decide how they want to deal with this issue. Obama thought, and acted, like he was king, but you were okay with that.
Prepare for all-out ethnic demagoguery from the left. Honestly, I doubt there will be a bipartisan immigration bill before the six months are up. Dems will oppose whatever comes from the Republicans because the Dems need to keep Hispanics #resisting until November 2018.
If we give amnesty to illegals, do we also have to give amnesty to members of Congress and past presidents who refused to enforce our laws and borders which created this mess?
Brookzene said...
You should really reconsider this hysterical argument that one side is all about REASON and the other (the cons usually, as here), is all about FEELZ. The shelf-life long ago expired on this with Trump's election. There ain't nothing reasonable about this administration and its acolytes.
9/5/17, 10:56 AM
You saying that just proves the point. What has Trump done since in office that has been illegal or has over stepped his Presidential powers? Sure he has done things that YOU don't like or appreciate but what has he done that he has no right to do?
Unlike Obama that is at the top of the score card for SCOTUS over-turns...
"Had the authoritarian Obama chosen to work with Congress and actually make some compromises, he could have made this law that Trump couldn't reverse so easily."
-- And we'd have better policy too.
Unless something passes Congress DACA will be dead and all those kids will be eligible to be deported - and it will be the Dems' fault.
The Republicans are the ones who are going to kill DACA (more likely it will never even be brought to the floor--maybe the Senate, but definitely not the House). To blame the Democrats for something the Republicans will kill is some serious delusional thinking.
Trump has done this as a cruel calculation. He knows Congress is incapable of fixing this, so when the six months pass he will say "my hands are tied, we have to deport these people". Nobody but his most ardent fans are going to believe his bullshit when he tries to place the blame on Congress.
"But again, playing politucs with people's lives. So easy for politicians...."
Isn't that why we have politicians, to balance people's interests? How many people have died in the desert because of promises Obama made, how many refugees died bec
It's almost like the Legislature should be responsible for writing the laws of our nation! Crazy talk, I know.
Fucking Media, though. They get the nice centrist people with this shit every time. Sure what Obama did was well outside of the norm for Presidential/Executive action/power, and sure it probably wasn't strictly "Constitutioanl," but it was GOOD, and GOOD FOR THE CHILDREN. Obama LOVES CHILDREN. Anyone who objects to Obama's actions must HATE CHILDREN, and therefore be a bad person.
It's downright UGLY to undo nice Obama's loving actions!
Rule of law? Ugly!
President decides to execute the actual law. What's the world coming to?
Anyway, I don't "believe" anything about Trump's statements and promises, since I don't know that he knows what he means or will do. As an agnostic NeverNeverTrumper, I judge him by actions taken. This one's late but good.
Even better if it leads to a rational and firm new immigration and citizenship policy--but I don't "believe" that will happen.
You saying that just proves the point. What has Trump done since in office that has been illegal or has over stepped his Presidential powers? Sure he has done things that YOU don't like or appreciate but what has he done that he has no right to do?
You can try to make this another reasonable day in the Trump White House and that's fine, go for it. But there's no way anyone can make this a reasonable Admninistration with reasonable adherents. Sorry.
Syria and ISIS has already been fixed with a Putin deal.
I really wish I had access to the drugs you do. Life would be a lot more pleasant if I could remove myself so totally from reality.
No more acceptance for the joke that the pro-Trump forces are reasonable and everyone else are emotional and "feelings". That stinky meme/argument won't pass the smell test anymore - not with Trump in office.
BDNYC said...
Prepare for all-out ethnic demagoguery from the left. Honestly, I doubt there will be a bipartisan immigration bill before the six months are up. Dems will oppose whatever comes from the Republicans because the Dems need to keep Hispanics #resisting until November 2018.
Right. This would be the battle that Steve Bannon totally wants. That Bannon thinks will be a big winner in the end for immigration hawks. Make the national electorate choose, on immigration lawlessness.
And for all of my disagreements with Bannon, I think that on this question he is right, whether I like it or not. (I sort of like it, in fact.)
Freder Frederson said... Nobody but his most ardent fans are going to believe his bullshit when he tries to place the blame on Congress.
In your statement you say that Congress is "incapable of fixing" this. How then is it not Congress' fault? You've just admitted that it is!
For God's sake, you guys really don't seem to care about something as fundamental as the separation of powers or the structure of the US Government, do you? Two and a quarter centuries of Constitutional existence and you're content to say "doesn't matter; since the Legislature "can't get it done" the President should just do what he needs to do to solve the problem!"
If the President used that kind of power in any other arena on any other topic you disagree with this stance on you'd be howling for impeachment. Hey, Congress can't seem to get tax reform done, so why doesn't the President just instruct the IRS not to prosecute rich people who only pay 20% as their top marginal rate?
Ridiculous.
"And Congress claims it has too full a schedule to deal with this issue."
-- My boss would tell me to prioritize things better. As Congress's boss, I suggest we deliver the same message.
Brookie thinks that getting him to explain his position is some kind of trick. If he had an example of unconstitutional actions by Trump, he would give them. I guess blocking people on Twitter is impeachable!
"Playing politics with people's lives."
-- Politics is all about making decisions that impact people's lives, and yes, in some cases, people will live or die because of political decisions. Trump isn't "playing politics" here. Congress hasn't made a law, and Trump withdrew what was a very possibly unconstitutional executive action.
These consequences were ones Obama was openly warned about, but ignored.
If he had an example of unconstitutional actions by Trump
I have no idea wtf you are talking about. What did I say about unconstitutional actions? Actually nothing.
Oh, I get it. You're giving an example of the kind of irrationality I was pointing out that you guys frequently traffic in.
Brookzene said...No more acceptance for the joke that the pro-Trump forces are reasonable and everyone else are emotional and "feelings". That stinky meme/argument won't pass the smell test anymore - not with Trump in office.
Who ever said that about Trump?! Plenty of us argue Left v. Right that the Right is more rational/bases their policy beliefs less around emotion than the Left does (an assertion lots of people like Professor A dispute), but I don't think I've ever seen it argued that Trump/the Trump Admin/Trump people are emotionally detached Vulcans in the George Will vein. Trump's a soft right populist--of course populists rely on emotional appeals!
"No more acceptance for the joke that the pro-Trump forces are reasonable and everyone else are emotional and "feelings"
It's more observational humor than a joke. But maybe you can explain why illegal immigration is goid for America and harms no American citizens.
It's more observational humor than a joke. But maybe you can explain why illegal immigration is goid for America and harms no American citizens.
Why would I explain why illegal imm is "goid" for American and harms no American citizens?
Really, thank you for continuing to show good examples of irrationality.
For God's sake, you guys really don't seem to care about something as fundamental as the separation of powers or the structure of the US Government, do you?
Actually, I do care about it. The problem is the Republicans, since they gained control of the House, have proven they are incapable of governing. They simply can't get anything done. And blaming the Democrats will only go so far.
If you continue to insist that the Constitution is dead (and that is Scalia's term, not mine), then maybe we need a new one that is better suited to the realities of the 21st century.
@Freder Fredereson "Trump has done this as a cruel calculation. He knows Congress is incapable of fixing this, so when the six months pass he will say "my hands are tied, we have to deport these people". Nobody but his most ardent fans are going to believe his bullshit when he tries to place the blame on Congress."
Yes. Also absolutely telling that Trump didn't hold the press conference himself.
Here's a good quote from Twitter:
"Whatever you think of him, Trump's a great showman and it's telling that he doesn't want to star in the DACA episode of the Trump Show."
Trump's a soft right populist--of course populists rely on emotional appeals!
Sure. But then in cannot be argued that it's the other side that's FEELZ.
Waaaah, waaaah, it's too hard to make laws--some people will be mad at us, some people will vote against us, boo hoo hoo! Poor lil' legislators.
I'm not certain the issue as a whole is a winner for the Republicans, but so what? The job of the Legislature is to make laws. They're supposed to have vigorous debates and work things out. Doing nothing, or being "unable to do anything," is a choice, too. They're complaining about taking heat from interest groups but that's precisely what they're supposed to do! That's their job, that's what they're elected and paid to do.
Even if the issue costs some Republicans their seats it's better to establish and reinforce the norm that the Legislature is responsible for creating laws and for dealing with the competing interests of their various constituents. That's the way our system is supposed to work. If they're too spineless to actually do their jobs then they don't deserve to hold them and I won't cry when they're voted out.
Onetime "NeverTrumper" Andrew McCarthy at NRO backs Trump (somewhat) and points the way toward the Constitutionally correct way forward:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451071/donald-trump-daca-democrats-must-compromise
The one thing I find is a lot of people opposed to DACA don't reaaly understand how it works, what it takes to qualify and how it is more a benefit to society than having these children uneducated
As far as age goes, what it takes to qualify is to have a birthdate on or after 16 June 1981, which means some of these children recently turned 36.
Brookenze said...Sure. But then in cannot be argued that it's the other side that's FEELZ.
Sure it can. They're both about FEELZ. We can argue over the relative amount on each side, but both sides of this issue strongly rely on emotional appeals.
"Look at this poor doe-eyed youngster--how dare you say our Constitutional system requires you to make this topic one Congress decides? What's the rule of law when compared to these lil' angels?! Anyone advancing any argument that I might construe as contrary to the best interests of these specific people is a monster and must be doing so out of their own ugly racism and bigotry." That's feelz.
"Look at the damage this unconstitutional executive order is doing to our nation and our own conception of how we should govern and be governed! Look at the harm some of these illegal aliens and Dreamers have done (list crimes, etc). How can you allow this program to continue when it has the potential to continue harming so many people? They took ur juurbs!" That's feelz, too.
Actually, I do care about it. The problem is the Republicans, since they gained control of the House, have proven they are incapable of governing. They simply can't get anything done. And blaming the Democrats will only go so far
That's probably the first thing that Freder has ever written that I've agreed with.
Are the dreamers the kids, their parents, or the employers of cheap labor?
"Cruel torture to tie DREAMers to a timebomb dooming them to exile unless a spineless Congress spares them w/in 6 months. Cowardly Trump!"
~ Laurence Tribe
Brookzene said...
You can try to make this another reasonable day in the Trump White House and that's fine, go for it. But there's no way anyone can make this a reasonable Admninistration with reasonable adherents. Sorry.
9/5/17, 11:09 AM
So you got nothing but FEELZ. I understand. He is not Hillary (thank the Lord) and for many people [yourself included] that is enough. I could at least articulate why Obama was a crappy President. I could point to specific things he did that were not legal or where poorly thought out and poorly executed. The Trump haters mostly have "he is not Hillary". Oh well.
If someone has been here since they were an infant they should not be deported and should have a path to citizenship. That path should exclude those who have engaged in felonious crime or have otherwise demonstrated that they have no intent in integrating into American culture.
Sunsong and Laurence Tribe argue that President Trump should have dictatorial powers. Really, these people can't keep their shit straight for even a minute.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
...
Even if the issue costs some Republicans their seats it's better to establish and reinforce the norm that the Legislature is responsible for creating laws and for dealing with the competing interests of their various constituents. That's the way our system is supposed to work. If they're too spineless to actually do their jobs then they don't deserve to hold them and I won't cry when they're voted out.
I'd hate for any Republicans to lose their seats over immigration, which ought to be a winner for us nearly everywhere.
I am just trying to think of any Republicans in danger of losing their seats for being too soft and too conciliatory with far-left Dems on the immigration issue.
Jeff Flake might be imperiled for being too soft on immigration. I do not expect that Jeff Flake would be voted (in a general election) out for being part of a grand Republican bargain on immigration. A grand bargain that all liberal Democrats oppose and/or are forced into.
Ted Cruz is not imperiled in Texas. Bob Corker is not imperiled in Tennessee. Deb Fischer is not imperiled in Nebraska.
What about Debbie Stabenow(D) in Michigan? Martin Heinrich(D) in New Mexico? Tim Kaine(D) in Virginia? Bob Casey(D) in Pennsylvania? Are they ready to defend a far left extremist-amnesty position on immigration?
I really do think that if we proceed carefully and with discipline, this is a fight that Congressional Republicans and Trump can win together.
Freder Frederson said...Actually, I do care about it. The problem is the Republicans, since they gained control of the House, have proven they are incapable of governing. They simply can't get anything done. And blaming the Democrats will only go so far.
Ok, let's agree arguendo that it's all the Repub. House's fault. What do you mean "incapable of governing?" They haven't passed bills you want? That's a form of governing. If they're getting reelected then presumably they're satisfactory to their constituents, right? Oh, I know, I know gerrymandering, right? Gerrymandering's why the Repubs. gained all those state seats, all those governorships, etc. Sure, ok.
You can't just play the "incapable of governing" card without some sort of support. "Not doing what the Dem. president and Dem. voters want" isn't the same thing as not governing. The system is designed to be difficult! It's supposed to be hard to get stuff done, man, that's on purpose.
I'm not happy with what the Republican Congress has done and left undone. I'm not happy with it for reasons that are probably very different from yours, but there are a lot of people like us who are less than happy with their performance. So? You don't get to say "deal's off, one branch gets to fundamentally change the power structure of our government because lots of people are somewhat unhappy now." If we do then Trump's a dictator, right? If it's valid for the President "to act" when the President decides the rest of the government is "incapable of governing" then we're going to have dictator Trump. I don't want that!
If you want a Constitutional Convention then just say so. Keep in mind what the state Legislatures look like, though.
Althouse: ...people will say it's cruel, even as Obama was kind...
Except for Nick Lowe's girlfriend, who said that you've got to be cruel to be kind.
" When you're targeting children, you've lost all moral bearings."
Peter Daou
I've been reading this blog for many years. But as some of you have noticed, a few weeks ago I decided to join in, a little bit. Of course, I knew that most of the commenters here leaned further right than me. That was the appeal. I thought it would be a good thing to talk to people with different views.
But this is just terrible. This whole thread. With a very few exceptions, there isn't an inch of humanity in any of these comments. You guys are ice cold.
The other day, Ann Althouse wrote a rather moving comment somewhere about loving people being the most important thing. I wish I could find it again.
How can you write about this topic with so little empathy for the terrible suffering that will entail? How can Professor Althouse, who has strong views and gets annoyed at things such as the choice of stupid stock photos on an online articles, not spare a single word or emotion on what it might feel like to be a dreamer?
Oh I know! You're going to dismiss what I say as too emotional. But some situations are emotional.
If this is the law - then what is the point of the law? If this is the constitution, then what is the point of having a constitution? What is the point of being a huge, strong country if we can't make room within our borders for 800,000 extra people who never did anyone any harm, who built their lives?
You should be ashamed of yourselves for the truly disgusting tone of this comment board.
This will finally prove to you that I am not a troll. If I was a troll, I would keep on arguing. But I am not. I am just an ordinary person. Your lack of humanity is distressing so I better avoid this site in the future.
Sunsong and Laurence Tribe argue that President Trump should have dictatorial powers. Really, these people can't keep their shit straight for even a minute.
in an adolescent black and white mind, perhaps. Adults can perceive more than two possibilities and what Trump has done is not only cowardly it is cruel...
These "children" are often in their twenties. They are not being targeted any more than our immigration laws "target" people who want to slip over the border and set up shop without following the fucking rules. Or "targeting" Syrian children by the millions who might prefer to live here in our beautiful country instead of their own war torn shithole.
Peter Daou was the internet "strategist" for the failed Hillary Clinton, a person whose moral bearings he might be better able to comment on.
The thing about this that strikes me is that for all the bloviating, Trump respects the rule of law. When courts overturned his visa restrictions, he just bitched in a tweet and then appealed or re-wrote the offending E.O.--he never threatened to ignore the courts, let alone actually do so.
Obama's DACA actions were clearly not permitted by law, and what I see Trump doing is giving Congress 6 months to deal with it--in law. Arguably, Trump is violating the law as did Obama (and I see Ann Coulter saying that), but under the circumstances I give him credit for trying to get Congress to align the law with what many people want--but if they don't, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws there-under.
This isn't rocket science; if Congress wants to throw a lifeline to the "Dreamers" it can easily do so. I am skeptical they will, because they are a dysfunctional bunch of sociopaths, but it is right of Trump to give them a chance.
No one in the 'elite' will ever admit it, but Obama ran the most lawless government in recent memory--ignoring or contravening the law whenever it seemed politically feasible. Maybe Trump would do the same if the media was on his side--that's a hypothetical and we will never know. But in the real world, for whatever reason, Trump governs within the law and Obama didn't.
Teenage unemployment among African Americans is very high. Let's acknowledge that preferring illegal immigrants over African Americans is cruel to African Americans.
Aaaand Kitty validates the FEELZ observation made above.
sunsong said...
"Cruel torture to tie DREAMers to a timebomb dooming them to exile unless a spineless Congress spares them w/in 6 months. Cowardly Trump!"
~ Laurence Tribe
9/5/17, 11:37 AM
You are 100% correct! Those poor kids, being used as pawns by their parents who knowingly entered a foreign country illegally with small children knowing that they could die on the way, die once they got here, would have to live their lives in the shadows, illegally, it is a shame. Why were they not thinking "of the children"?
The Dems are screaming about this because Ryan evidently wanted it. This way the GOP has more leverage - the Dems in Congress were getting set up to be obstructionist.
Anyway, unless the Dems really do not care about the Dreamers, the outcome will be that an illegal program will become a legal one, and these people will be on a much more solid footing.
I utterly support the idea that any president is right to follow the law and also right to call on Congress to deal with problems that need legislative redress. I don't think DACA would stand legally in court.
"Sunsong and Laurence Tribe argue that President Trump should have dictatorial powers. Really, these people can't keep their shit straight for even a minute.
in an adolescent black and white mind, perhaps. Adults can perceive more than two possibilities and what Trump has done is not only cowardly it is cruel..."
Aaaand Sunsong really, really insists that President Trump should have dictatorial powers.
"Okay. The Bad Man continues to do bad.Your move, Congress."
~ Lin-Manuel Miranda
Chuck said...I'd hate for any Republicans to lose their seats over immigration, which ought to be a winner for us nearly everywhere.
Sure, but the danger for Repubs goes both ways. Lots of us are still unhappy with Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio for being too conciliatory. Jeb's out there Tweeting at the Pres. now using the same kind of language the Dems. use!
But we have to acknowledge that the Media will have an easy time goin' hard against Repubs on this issue. Like they always have, sure, but in typical Obama fashion the last admin. took action that should have been outside their power to distort the landscape and ensure that anyone returning things to their proper place will be easy to paint as an ugly hateful bigot. The fact that it was a transparently political move/pander isn't something the Media will bother to mention, of course.
It's not a terrible issue for the Dems because they can rely on the Media to only show one side of the ledger. You're not going to see news stories showing both Dreamers graduating from grad school and Dreamers locked up for committing crimes, Chuck. It's an easy emotional story for the Media to tell and the Dems will make sure it's told that way.
Look, we've seen prominent Republicans too afraid of being called ugly to denounce clear, well-documented violence from leftwing groups. Since they lack even that much spine I don't think we can count on them to stand up to the maudlin, sensationalized stories that will paint them as heartless villains (attacking children!) from now until the midterm elections. They're going to be ITCHING to sign on to some compromise that'll give them some cover--something to point to in order to prove they're not one of the bad ones!
Contrast THAT, of course, with the right-wing populist pressure to "deport 'em all." The Repubs can pretend like Trump's terrible approval rating means Trump voters don't matter, but I'd bet come primary time they'll be a number of contenders who'll be happy to point to some "establishment" Repub agreeing with Nancy Pelosi on immigration. The "they stabbed Donald in the back!" storyline is easy to write, too.
Teenage unemployment among African Americans is very high. Let's acknowledge that preferring illegal immigrants over African Americans is cruel to African Americans.
Ha ha! Here's your FEELZ observation for you, @The Cracker Emcee Activist.
Our Rational Overlords on the right.
They need to address the diverse causes of mass emigration, including Obama's elective wars (a.k.a. social justice adventures) that forced CAIR and the trail of tears, the Democratic interests to disenfranchise Americans and gerrymander districts, and the business interests that enjoy low-wage labor, subsidized consumers, and high-density population centers. Also, people who are advocates for selective-child, including Planned Parenthood/clinical cannibalism, of lives deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable, have an irreconcilable, trans-human, and certainly anti-American, conflicts of interests. Finally, the class diversitists (i.e. racists) who judge people by the color of their skin. This is a progressive form of neo-National Socialism with liberal (i.e. divergent) swings that cannot be tolerated.
"Ha ha! Here's your FEELZ observation for you, @The Cracker Emcee Activist"
He's mocking you, Yo. You can't be that clueless.
dooming them to exile
The left feels very strongly that the only people in the United States who would not benefit from a lifetime surrounded by ever-increasing numbers of Mexicans, are Mexican citizens.
What is the point of being a huge, strong country if we can't make room within our borders for 800,000 extra people who never did anyone any harm, who built their lives?
You seem sincere, but there is a lot being assumed there. "Never did anyone any harm" is part of the issue. More than that, there's the issue of law and process. Once you abandon that, you leave the definition of right, wrong, compassion, etc. to the whims of whoever is in power. What do you think it means to say that we are a government of laws, not of men? Try re-reading Antigone to see what the issue is.
I'm not particularly interested in DACA, or Dreamers or even the famous Wall. I am interested in reducing the flow of illegal immigrants to our country, and enforcing the law. Any reasonable MEANS chosen to achieve this goal is fine with me.
On the other hand, the Dems want a multi-culture, welfare society which, in their view, breeds more Democrat voters and certain elite Republucans like cheap labor.
So, based in part on my opponents, I think I'm on solid ground.
The lawns will not cut themselves. The dishes won't wash themselves. The diapers won't change themselves.
If this were about children, then the solution is to bring every poor child and their parent to the US, not just those on our Souther border.
I really hate the term "Dreamer". It implies a reality that mostly doesn't exist. Originally, it was mostly people who join the military to get citizenship. Except that that is exceedingly rare these days for a number of reasons, mostly that they aren't volunteering and aren't as qualified as other, legal, applicants. Then they added college students. Why is someone here illegally, getting public support to go to our colleges and universities, a "dreamer"? I would consider many of them opportunists. At least though, they have a potential of contributing to our society. But what about all the high school dropouts and gang members? What are they dreaming about? Our generous welfare system and soft criminal justice system? The reality is that they tend to be less educated that the rest of our country, and less capable of actually contributing. Not, of course, on an individual basis, but statistically. And an amazing number of "children" who come here illegally turn out to be 16 and 17 years old. Often, already gang members.
And then the other part of this - their families. Give them citizenship, and, all of a sudden, their aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc, have a claim to be here. Trump tried to limit this, but activist, Dem activists wearing robes (I.e. Federal judges) have effectively neutered this.
Maybe a deal could be worked out where the "dreamers" have to leave now, but they'll get travel visas to come back in nine months so the little darlings can see their kids graduate high school.
"“I’d much rather have a bleeding heart than a dead one.”
~ John Pavlovitz
He's mocking you, Yo. You can't be that clueless.
You can't be that clueless. It's so obviously stupid.
What is the point of being a huge, strong country if we can't make room within our borders for 800,000 extra people who never did anyone any harm, who built their lives?
How many of them are moving in to your house? How many of them are you going to support? How many more of them get to come to the U.S. this year? Next year? Why are we responsible for every other country's poor people?
What is the point of being a huge, strong country if we can't make room within our borders for 800,000 extra people who never did anyone any harm, who built their lives?
Right? 800,000 extra people and maybe just one guy who doesn't want to pay FICA or income taxes. Surely you can agree with me that it would do no harm if I were allowed to not pay federal taxes, so that I could afford to spend more on a dog walker for my puppies. You like puppies, don't you?
KittyM said...If this is the law - then what is the point of the law? If this is the constitution, then what is the point of having a constitution? What is the point of being a huge, strong country if we can't make room within our borders for 800,000 extra people who never did anyone any harm, who built their lives?
Kitty, if you want to "make room" for people then pass a law making room for them. I'd wonder why you'd stop at these 800k people, of course--isn't there room for another 800k people, those people over there (*point to sad-looking group of innocent kids in some 3rd world country*), etc...
But the point of the law is that it's the law! The point of the Constitution is that it's the Constitution. I'm amazed at how quickly people want to abandon such things--totally thrown the rule of law out the window!--when discussing this topic.
I give you credit for being honest about it, really I do. But I want you to understand how dangerous a sentiment that is. "If the law does something I think is unfair then we all ought to just disregard the law" is an idea that MIGHT apply to very extreme cases in times of revolution, but to use it on something as quotidian and unremarkable as a nation's immigration policy is downright dangerous.
I hope we all agree that nations have the right (and responsibility) to set their own immigration laws. I hope we can all agree with the plain facts that the US's immigration laws are neither the most restrictive nor the most generous in the world (Mexico's, for example, are much harsher). I hope we can all agree that going WAAAAAY back to the status quo ante of less-than-a-decade ago would not be some massive, unprecedented, unthinkable thing, but rather that one President undoing an Executive Order of another President is in fact a common occurrence.
See? I have hopes, KittyM, high hopes.
The laws of our nation are not a ratchet that can only be turned one way. Laws can be changed by other laws, and our Constitution can be changed by Amendment. Even less so are Executive Orders a ratchet--you folks seem to be selling the idea that once some EO is signed and benefits some group that EO can never be changed and that benefit can never be removed. That's simply not how our system works, and I'm not buying what you're selling.
It harms people to take away a benefit they previously were given. That's true. Some of the people who benefited from Obama's EO were young people, and I guess some still are relatively young. OK. I have never before heard the standard of "this action or law cannot be subjected to the normal functioning of the American government because if it was some young-ish people will lose a benefit" so widely called for, and those of you who want to assert that without any further argument are, respectfully, wholly unconvincing.
@Chuck, regarding Jeff Flake and Ted Cruz, based on my observations during frequent business travel to Texas and other southwestern cities back in the day, I can and do infer that over the decades Texas, probably New Mexico, and certainly Arizona figured out how to accommodate porous borders. What upsets me is when Flake, McCain, and Udall can't be bothered to understand why their states' situation is different from, say, Virginia, where open borders means MS-13 and that their kids can't get a decent starter job because all those jobs are taken by "undocumented immigrants."
Sunsong - what Trump has done is move to conform regulatory policy with the law and the Constitution. It is not cruel, because indeed Congress should act to deal with the matter long before the six months is up. It will not be cruel even if Congress will not deal with the matter, because the President has no legal authority to create immigration policy under the Constitution.
Trump has gone to Congress and asked for disaster relief for Hurricane Harvey victims. Is that cruel? Do you think he should just order Treasury to take some of the IRS receipts and compassionately distribute the money to hurricane victims? I don't even understand how to converse or interact with someone who appears to genuinely believe that the constitutional government of checks and balances created by the Constitution of the United States is cruel.
What do you want? I really want to know. Do you want a president as Big Sky Daddy Hero figure kind of bobbing through the political landscape like a float in a parade? Make enough commotion, get close enough, your appeal is heard and Big Sky Daddy grants your request? Maybe we could have some torchlight parades for such a figure? Look around the world - such figures end by creating utter misery in their countries. At best.
I am curious. sunsong, Brookzene, KittyM, etc. All of the commentators that think that Trump is a big meanie because he did not rubber stamp Obama's illegal DACA move, all those that think it is cruel to send these "children" home.
Where do you stand on the pro-choice/pro-life debate? Is sending an illegal alien back to their native country more or less cruel than ending the life of an unborn child out of convenience to the mother? Do you oppose Trump but support PP?
Just asking...
@ Freder I have more faith in the self-preservation instincts of the slugs that inhabit Congress than you do. The R's from Texas are going to have to participate. There are R congress critters from CA who are going to want to do something. The R's from rural farming states states are going to have to look carefully at this. (Headline in the Mpls Strib today: "Stretched for workers, Minn. businesses lament immigration pushback".) The Dems will be all over it and both Ryan and McConnell would be fools not to force something to the floor. (I know, they certainly have looked like fools so far.) This will not be allowed to lay fallow in the Congress. The publicity surrounding a failure will make the picture of Ryan rolling the old lady off the cliff look like a good deed.
One of the reasons I voted for Trump was I believed that he was going to force the Congress to resume it's assigned role. This is a case in point.
800,000 extra people and maybe just one guy who doesn't want to pay FICA or income taxes
Two maybe?
I really hate the term "Dreamer".
How about "nightmares"? (Stolen from another blog I read.)
A rational decision by Trump. Obama had no authority to do what he did, and Trump has no authority to continue the policy. While Congress could quite easily draft a bill that reinstates DACA- I do think there is a broad consensus that this class of illegal immigrant should be allowed to stay on purely humanitarian grounds- Congress would have to offer something in return for this to Trump and his supporters.
My prediction is this- Congress will do absolutely nothing between now and March 2018.
Let me get this straight: according to the left, the U.S. is a horribly unequal, racist, and oppressive society, yet nothing could be more cruel than requiring illegal immigrants to leave it.
Six months gives them plenty of time to learn Spanish.
Wow, judging from my Facebook feed, I had no idea that Trump had decided to round up the DACA kids & put them on barges & then push them out into the Gulf of Mexico.
What's that you say? Trump's telling Congress that he doesn't think Executive Orders are the right way to handle an issue like this, & that he thinks that Congress should craft some actual legislation to handle this situation? Gosh, that's sounds downright reasonable!
And all the folks on the board going apoplectic over this --- get a grip! The fact that the Republicans can't pass any legislation on this or any other matter without Democratic support means that the DACA kids will probably end up with a fairly good deal out of it, and a deal enshrined in permanent law, not the whim of a President. No Democrat could sign off on it & keep his seat otherwise.
If I understood Rush right, Thomas Friedman wants entry of high IQ and high energy workers, which must mean Asians and Mexicans, respectively.
There's suffering children all over the world. The trick is press coverage.
Women still vote.
Just wondering: where were these Dreamer people during the first two years of Obama's Presidency? Why did the Dem-controlled Congress at that time write a Dreamer law to be signed by President Obama? Was that Dem Congress "incapable of governing," too? Are ALL Congress-es now "incapable of governing?"
Nobody wants to take a tough, risky vote. The Repubs don't want to and the Dems didn't want to. To make LAWS, though, requires the LEGISLATURE to sometimes take tough, risky votes. You don't get to bypass that requirement just 'cause you want to--nor just 'cause you're doing it "for a good cause just this once."
"Let me get this straight: according to the left, the U.S. is a horribly unequal, racist, and oppressive society, yet nothing could be more cruel than requiring illegal immigrants to leave it."
This is a very underused general approach response to much liberal rhetoric. It is a purely emotional set of assertions against which there is no reasonable response.
Their only answer, in general, is to claim that countries x, y, and z are unlivable because its the fault of the US, somehow. The how is never made clear.
The turnaround in support for Trump as dictator is amazing, and it's mostly people who voted for the corrupt war monger. When you look at it that way, it makes sense!!
CRACKER EMCEE: He's mocking you, Yo. You can't be that clueless.
BROOZENE: You can't be that clueless. It's so obviously stupid.
I might have been wrong about this. I may have misled myself here. In general I shouldn't be listened to when I get into a hardened confrontational core with Trumpists or righties.
My main point that the claim made by one side or another that, apart from any particular argument, their side is the side of reason and the other side is the side of feeling or irrationalism is foolishly wrong.
What's crazy too is that waaaaay back when these executive orders (around DACA and DAPA) were being enacted the Democrats all insisted that it was perfectly legal and perfectly Constitutional precisely because the Executive action was not creating any kind of legal status--they were just clarifying the parameters for a particular type of prosecutoral discretion. Since prosecutoral discretion is the sole domain of the Executive, and Obama was President, well..."I won," right? Pen and a phone and all that jazz.
Now Trump is the President and these same Democrats are falling all over themselves to insist that Trump does not have the right, does not legitimately have the power, to rescind those EOs...because they created a distinct legal status for some people and the benefits of those legal statuses cannot be taken away without due process!
See? Never trust the Left. More broadly never trust the Government! The really sad part is that I'm certain there are plenty of judges/justices who will happily rule exactly that way. There's certainly precedent--it's a fine; it's a tax; it's whatever it needs to be, baby!
Six months gives them plenty of time to learn Spanish.
There we go! Now we're talkin' Trump supporters.
Remember how upset the same people got when Obama started the policy of deporting any Cubans who had followed the drinking gourd north to escape multi-billionaire Castro's personal plantation island and workers paradise?
where were these Dreamer people during the first two years of Obama's Presidency?
Hunger striking to get the Pentagon to accept the transgendered.
Sebastian at 12:26 raises an important question for progressives. Do the progs believe that Honduras and El Salvador and Nicaragua and Guatemala and Mexico are inferior? They their cultures are not the equals of ours?
Now Trump is the President and these same Democrats are falling all over themselves to insist that Trump does not have the right, does not legitimately have the power, to rescind those EOs...because they created a distinct legal status for some people and the benefits of those legal statuses cannot be taken away without due process!
I don't know who is making that argument - I guess I'm not following that closely, I haven't heard it. Seems like a narrow legal argument that can be tested easily enough in the courts - what's the big deal?
I think the greater argument that others are making that I have heard is that Trump is sinking the dreamers in a manner that's inhumane, and that he's not taking the responsibility in certain ways, such as making the announcement himself instead of giving it to Sessions. It's not that he doesn't have the right, it's that he's not doing right.
Are we going to free all the prisoners who have children because their children are alone??? The laws are on the books...if they want to change them...do it constitutionally.....Put the blame on Obama who knew this would happen, and did it anyways....
I agree with Althouse that he is never going to deport dreamers.
I am also horny today. I wasn't horny for like three days and I was concerned that I would never be horny again-afraid actually. Today is all better though-I have been hard a big chunk of the day-total relief.
tits.
It's not that he doesn't have the right, it's that he's not doing right.
Covers about every criticism of Trump from tweets to firing Comey.
The whole system of immigration only works if the immigrants ASSIMILATE into our US culture, society and economy.
The Left has dropped assimilation from any requirements. They want more Dem voters. They want 14 different languages on their voting ballots. They want an expansion of government programs.
Myself, I am for limiting immigration to those who assimilate and don't get on welfare.
"You know what would really MAGA? Keeping the Dreamers and deporting the Nazis."
~ Randi Mayhem Singer
Assimilate into a racist society accepting de-facto racist ideas like free speech? May as well use AntiFa for border patrol.
Why don't we deport both?
HoodlumDoodlum: Fucking Media, though. They get the nice centrist people with this shit every time.
The media are the media. They do what media do. I assume most "nice centrist people" are capable of understanding how propaganda organs function, and basic political horse-trading. So "it's the media's fault" to the extent that we're willing to give "nice centrist people" a pass for decades' worth of allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated and bullied into submission by "the media".
As you say, Fucking Media, but when are we going to hold the "nice centrist" people responsible for their failure here? (I'm not talking about the sunsongs and the KttyMs, bless their hearts. It's a shame they're allowed to meddle in politics to disastrous effect, but they're probably doing the best they can with what the good Lord gave them.) I'm talking about the "nice centrist people" who obviously have the nous to think through actions and consequences, who do know a little history, who do seem to understand that 2+2 really does equal 4, even if they wish it didn't.
An intelligent "nice centrist person" has no excuse for continuing to fall for "this shit", for refusing to accept responsibly for all "this shit" they were lazily willing to fall for, decade after decade, when they were and are perfectly capable of understanding that "the shit" would just keep getting worse every time they fell for it.
Fool nice centrist people once, shame on the media. Fool them 467,892 times...fuck nice centrist people.
Since we are abrogating the ConsConstitution.
Oops, I hinted that even Nazis have constitutional rights, though if you could convince me that there was a way to make a single except, just for followers of mass murdering ideologies like Nazism and Maoism, like a lot of the AntiFa, I might be on board.
I live in the SF Bay Area. I listened to the news this morning. I believe Pelosi and Harris have already cut the audio for the commercials Republicans will run to hold states like my native Michigan.
The legal, social, and economic disruption has largely been absorbed by communities. Those people should be assimilated (e.g. English language) and integrated (e.g. education, employment) into American society. So, the question is what to do with progressive disruptions, and the diverse causes of mass emigration. The issue is not immigration, but rather emigration reform. Also, the irreconcilable conflicts of interest suffered by the Pro-Choice Church and similar "reformed", "progressive" organizations. As well as business and Democratic special interests.
Mexico is going to welcome the DACA folks back "with open arms"
This may be a sign of successful negotiation between Mexico and America to address emigration reform and the diverse causes of immigration reform that disrupts communities in both nations.
Mexico is going to welcome the DACA folks back "with open arms"
Providing food and shelter while they assimilate? If they can do that, some illegals may actually choose to go back. Hard to pick up and leave all your friends and familiarities behind for most people, I imagine.
gbarto said...
I live in the SF Bay Area. I listened to the news this morning. I believe Pelosi and Harris have already cut the audio for the commercials Republicans will run to hold states like my native Michigan.
What would those sound like?
Debbie Stabenow -- a waste of human space is ever there were one -- is running (we think; maybe not) in 2018. It is a hard state for Republicans to win senate races (which is how we got Stabenow, over the talented and productive Spence Abraham in 2000).
In Congress, we are at "Max Republican" in Michigan. We have 14 congressional districts, and only 5 of them are held by Democrats, despite more Michiganians voting for Dems for the House than Republicans. (That isn't the best stat, but it is sort of illuminating.) Those five districts are pretty much designed to be won by Dems.
The swing districts -- MI-1 and MI-7 -- are not socially amenable to a pro-immigration message, if you know those areas (the Upper Peninsula and Jackson County). Nor are the Republican-held 8th and 11th Districts (north and west suburban Detroit).
Sending the "dreamers" back is really cruel and vicious. You can make pretend but it's not fooling anyone. It's cruel. It's vicious. Anyone who sends them back or facilitates it will carry that stigma.
Trump, starting Act 2 in a bad, self-defeating way.
"Your lack of humanity is distressing so I better avoid this site in the future."
So sad.
I'll miss your high-horse lecturing and finger-waving shame.
Funny how you 'bleeding heart' leftists don't give a shit about the immigrants who went through the process LEGALLY.
Why is that?
Brookzene said...
"Sending the "dreamers" back is really cruel and vicious. You can make pretend but it's not fooling anyone."
Why should the American taxpayer be held hostage to your virtue signaling? The law was broken by their parents and by them. It's a shame that they should pay for their parents disregard for the law, but there it is. The law either means something or it is irrelevant.
Which leads us back to Roper.
Why should the American taxpayer be held hostage to your virtue signaling?
Calling out a cruel vicious policy: "virtue signalling." Really appreciate your background in sociology to help me understand this issue. I think that's going to make all the difference for you guys and your policy.
The law was broken by their parents and by them. It's a shame that they should pay for their parents disregard for the law, but there it is.
Heh heh. Why don't you just lead with "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" It sounds kinder.
I'm not sure I'm really interested, but who's Roper?
"Oh I know! You're going to dismiss what I say as too emotional. But some situations are emotional."
"And let this truth be present to thee in the excitement of anger, that to be moved by passion is not manly, but that mildness and gentleness, as they are more agreeable to human nature, so also are they more manly; and he who possesses these qualities possesses strength, nerves and courage, and not the man who is subject to fits of passion and discontent. For in the same degree in which a man's mind is nearer to freedom from all passion, in the same degree also is it nearer to strength: and as the sense of pain is a characteristic of weakness, so also is anger. For he who yields to pain and he who yields to anger, both are wounded and both submit. "
Marcus Aurelius, the "Meditations", Book 11
This is one of those things that make the Stoics incompatible with modernity, and the modern way of discourse.
Brookzene, don't think you ever answered my question as to if you care as much for unborn children as you do for dreamers.
"I'm not sure I'm really interested, but who's Roper?"
A real person, but referenced in this way in a conversation from "A Man for All Seasons."
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Angel-Dyne asserts: An intelligent "nice centrist person" has no excuse for continuing to fall for "this shit", for refusing to accept responsibly for all "this shit" they were lazily willing to fall for, decade after decade, when they were and are perfectly capable of understanding that "the shit" would just keep getting worse every time they fell for it.
Fool nice centrist people once, shame on the media. Fool them 467,892 times...fuck nice centrist people.
Exactly. We are losing our country and our culture, not due to radical leftists but to the indifference and neglect of the rest.
Matthew Sabian: Excellent excerpt from a truly great film.
Don't you just love the Orwellian destruction of the English language in the last decade or so?
'dreamers', 'safe spaces', 'equity', 'white privilege', 'affordable care act', and so on.
If you control the language, you control the people.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
" When you're targeting children, you've lost all moral bearings."
Peter Daou
Sunsong, what about the 700K abortions in the US per year? Those children never had a chance. I doubt that dreamers will even be deported, much less sliced up and sucked down a tube.
Anything as important as citizenship, should be decided by two Senators from each state, and 435 members of Congress.
Executive Orders should be rare in a Republic.
The President should revoke all Executive Orders that are issues best left to Congress.
Of course, the other half of the equation, is that more than 50% of the citizens must vote. You can't let these Senators For Life™ sit on their ass (I'm talking to you McCain and McConnell, you lazy bastards).
Brookzene, don't think you ever answered my question as to if you care as much for unborn children as you do for dreamers.
Yeah, it's not relevant as far as I can see. I don't like being led into discussions about abortion on threads concerning other topics, i.e., dreamers, trade policy, merits of cultural appropriation, etc. Maybe someone who sees it as relevant can comment on it.
Why Americans first is going to win Trump 40 states in 2020.
And when the GOPe refuses to do what its voters want republican voters will side with Trump.
Brookie said, "In general I shouldn't be listened to when I get into a hardened confrontational core with Trumpists or righties."
Bless your heart, you really don't have to worry about this.
The most important thing we can do this coming year is to primary out sitting members of Congress. The next thing we need to do is to demand term limits. Obviously, this is NOT something Congress will vote for. We need some kind of national referendum.
Sunsong, what about the 700K abortions in the US per year?
Woo hoo. Unabashed whataboutism, no apologies.
What would those sound like?
Debbie Stabenow -- a waste of human space is ever there were one -- is running (we think; maybe not) in 2018. It is a hard state for Republicans to win senate races (which is how we got Stabenow, over the talented and productive Spence Abraham in 2000).
Kid Rock will be the next senator from Michigan in a landslide.
Bless your heart, you really don't have to worry about this.
Bless your heart. Thanks for telling me, and letting me know of your existence.
It's really crazy what a poor memory the Media and their friends on the Left seem to have on certain topics.
Today everyone is up in arms about Trump ending this program. How dare he! Taking that program's benefits away from nice people is something only a mean ugly bigot would do. How dare anyone end what must have been intended as a permanent prgoram!
Except...
President Obama's Remarks On Immigration 15 June 2012
Now, let's be clear -- this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act.
So from the very beginning everyone agreed this was a TEMPORARY measure. Obama explicitly said it was a TEMPORARY measure. How then can people complain now that it's ending--how can anyone say it's somehow wrong or unexpected that the program would come to an end?! That's what temporary things do--they end.
"Yeah, it's not relevant as far as I can see."
If one is going to make a moral/ethical argument, it is entirely relevant to inquire into ones system of morals/ethics. Philosophically speaking there is a requirement for consistency, or at least a system.
Emotions are not a good guide. They are contingent, usually transient, and are easily created by irrational methods. One has to take them into account in other people as facts or probabilities, but in yourself they should be guarded against in analysis.
How then can people complain now that it's ending--how can anyone say it's somehow wrong or unexpected that the program would come to an end?! That's what temporary things do--they end.
Well someone's gotta take the responsibility for ending it at this point. Now who would that be? Lemme think...Could it be... Trump?
"So from the very beginning everyone agreed this was a TEMPORARY measure."
-- Practically nothing government does is temporary, I've come to realize.
If one is going to make a moral/ethical argument, it is entirely relevant to inquire into ones system of morals/ethics.
From where I stand if you want to make a general inquiry into someone's system of morals/ethics, abortion is about the last place to begin your assessment. That's just me though. YMMV if you are a hard-core non-compromising idealogue or True Believer on either side.
Brookenze said....I think the greater argument that others are making that I have heard is that Trump is sinking the dreamers in a manner that's inhumane, and that he's not taking the responsibility in certain ways, such as making the announcement himself instead of giving it to Sessions. It's not that he doesn't have the right, it's that he's not doing right.
How is it inhumane? He's explicitly set a 6 month deadline and hasn't announced anything like stepped-up enforcement or the gov. using the information gained through DACA for expedited deportation. What's inhumane about the way he's ending the program? It's a hell of a lot more generous than it needs to be--he could say "it ends tomorrow, update your plans."
Do you want me to believe that you and all the people Sunsong is quoting here would be ok with the policy if Trump announced the change himself? I do not believe that.
Brookzene said...
Well someone's gotta take the responsibility for ending it at this point. Now who would that be? Lemme think...Could it be... Trump?
Trump is putting the globalist's shenanigans to an end and is forcing congress to abide by the laws it writes. He is standing up to witless demagogues like you. Wages are going up for citizens already because he is ending the importation of cheap labor one program at a time.
The consequences of letting minors of illegals who sneak across the border are children dying in the desserts on the border and in the trailers of trucks. If you want to paint everyone who believes in the rule of law as evil jerks fine. You are responsible for every kid that dies because their parents think if they get them in the US they can stay.
Nobody believes your moralist bullshit. You are trying to subvert the laws of the country for political gain. Shipping out a few hundred thousand illegal democrat voters will do wonders for this country.
""hoo. Unabashed whataboutism, no apologies."
Yes, asking a person to explain how their moral stance applies in other cases is not valid. Morals are situational, like ethics. Besides, a baby is a legal non person and not human until she is born, if then.
To be clear, I doubt very much that these people are going to be sent back.
The long term result however, of this and so much else, is going to be disastrous.
It (and so much else), of official impunity and irregular application of the laws plus official disrespect for the traditions and culture of the American people, have already created a climate of opinion dividing the people from their rulers.
If the rulers expect to get away with this particular imposition, without long term consequences, they need to offer some apology, an immense penance, a sacrifice of massive proportions, perhaps involving a large scale phenomenon of, say, thousands upon thousands imposing upon themselves some severe mortification of the flesh.
-- Practically nothing government does is temporary, I've come to realize.
“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."- Milton Friedman.
"abortion is about the last place to begin your assessment."
Its interesting you think so.
From a classical perspective this is an issue absolutely determined by the most fundamental differences in systems of ethics.
I support abortion, reluctantly, but I recognise purblind partisan jingoism like what Brookie is spouting gor what it is.
Brookzene said...Well someone's gotta take the responsibility for ending it at this point. Now who would that be? Lemme think...Could it be... Trump?
I genuinely don't understand the objection here. Is anyone unaware this is the policy of the Trump Administration and that President Trump is responsible for his administration and its policies?
Read this comment thread--people are calling TRUMP a monster/inhuman, etc, for this policy change. Everyone understands this is President Trump's decision and his policy is to end the program in 6 months (giving the Legislature time to pass an actual law to effect whatever change they see fit to pass).
Morals are situational, like ethics. Besides, a baby is a legal non person and not human until she is born, if then.
Okay. Thanks for your unsolicited thoughts on abortion. I'm always wondering what everyone thinks of that, whatever is under discussion.
Brookzene said... [hush][hide comment]
Brookzene, don't think you ever answered my question as to if you care as much for unborn children as you do for dreamers.
Yeah, it's not relevant as far as I can see. I don't like being led into discussions about abortion on threads concerning other topics, i.e., dreamers, trade policy, merits of cultural appropriation, etc. Maybe someone who sees it as relevant can comment on it.
9/5/17, 2:45 PM
Sorry that you don't think it is relevant as I thought you were all about protecting the children and how much we should care about children that are innocent in this. Do you not see the parallels? I guess the priority order is women, children, men, based on your comments...
"I support abortion, reluctantly, but I recognise purblind partisan jingoism like what Brookie is spouting gor what it is."
-- I remember when a good chunk of the country could begrudgingly at least agree on "Safe, legal and rare."
Look at the language. Vicious, inhumane, cruel, brutal, heartless.
You guys realize that at worst--if the legislature does nothing--then we'd be going back to the policy that existed a mere 5 years ago, right? From the language you'd think some long-standing fundamental right were being torn away from people with no notice and no legal justification.
Apparently the nation was inhumane, brutal, cruel, heartless, and vicious for a century or so--right up until 5 years ago, at which time the nation's policies were finally correct. It's downright unthinkable to turn the clock back that far.
Inconceivable!
Trump is the rare politician who actually does what he said he would do in his campaign.
None of you centrist or Leftists are going to ever admit it but this is another one that's on the head of your Lightworker Obama.
Just like with the sequester, his team miscalculated he legislative landscape. He assumed the Dems would bounce back and get to use immigration as a wedge issue--peeling younger voters away from the GOP--and would shortly have the numbers in the Senate to pass the type of law they wanted. He assumed Hillary would win, of course.
Doing the policy via EO was yet another cynical move; it was designed to elicit precisely this emotional response if anyone dared undo it. Who would dare?! President Hillary wouldn't need to and President Jeb! would never dream (sorry) of taking political heat for undoing it.
The Obama group didn't get their "comprehensive" package passed so they figured they'd get done what they wanted to using a "temporary" EO that they'd effectively make permanent. The fact that the EO almost certainly exceeded the Executive's proper power--that the program went well beyond actual discretion--didn't really matter, since at worst it'd be tied up in the courts for a number of years.
Instead of compromising on a bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate the Obama Admin instead used executive orders to get more than they could have gotten otherwise, and more than they should have been allowed to get. They assumed that no one would have the balls to deal with the shrieking Media shitstorm that'd result from undoing what was done with a pen.
There's now way someone like Trump could win, anyway. Inconceivable!
AJ Lynch said...Trump is the rare politician who actually does what he said he would do in his campaign.
I mean, in fairness, we should keep a cynical eye on Trump, too. Populists love to be popular, and there's no doubt this move is going to be unpopular with the Media and large portions of the left and middle of the country. There's every chance that Trump will happily sign a sweeping immigration loosening that the GOP sends him. I haven't really heard Trump say much about what kind of legislation he'd veto if presented, and certainly we've heard super-squishy things from Ivana et al.
Still it's true that he's taken at least this step in support of what he said he'd do, so it's something.
I notice not much of that wall's gone up yet, though.
To Brookie, an unborn baby cannot be compared to a born child because reasons!!! But I don't blame him for not puting out his "reasons" which he knows he can't defend.
tim in vermont said...
I support abortion, reluctantly, but I recognise purblind partisan jingoism like what Brookie is spouting gor what it is.
9/5/17, 3:08 PM
I to am a very reluctant supporter. I wish that PP would honor their rhetoric and have abortion "safe and rare". Today it is neither. I also support capitol punishment. Adults should "own" their decisions and actions. The pre-born are true innocents and without a voice. Dreamers less so. I could be persuaded (rather easily actually) to support a path to citizenship for current "dreamers" under the following conditions.
A) It stops NOW, no more. You are in the country today, you get on a list. You not on the list tomorrow, out you go and no opportunity to EVER be a citizen.
B) Demonstrate a fluency in English. Speaking it and writing it.
C) This is for YOU. Not your mother, brother, child, grandma, third-cousin removed, etc. They on the list, they have a chance. Not on the list, out you go.
D) No criminal record. Got arrested, bye bye. Stay not arrested for 5 years or bye bye.
E) Not currently on welfare.
F) Not illegally using someone else's SSN.
G) Not one more gets in illegally, you caught in this country and not on [the now closed] list, out you go and NO chance for citizenship EVER.
H) G!
I) G!
....
Z) G!
I think most reasonable (subjective I know) people could support something like this. I think it is a fair start.
The only problem with my plan is that Congress will do what it always does. It will do the easy stuff now and NEVER do the hard. Every past immigration reform included amnesty NOW and border security NEVER. They can not be trusted and THAT is why many people don't support any sort of reform plan that includes an amnesty.
"Mexico will welcome migrants who opt to return to Mexico with "open arms," Sada said, offering assistance with work, finances and education." According to the left, all cultures are equal, but nothing could be more cruel than sending illegals back to Mexico.
Mexico as a nightmare for Dreamers: it tells you what the left really thinks.
What is required is some massive act, or acts, of appeasement.
Like huge demonstrations burning Mexican flags in an enormous ceremony of execration.
Or the ritual stoning of images of Cesar Chavez.
Or the mass recital of Longfellow's "The Midnight Ride"
I can think of a lot else along these lines.
Sending the "dreamers" back is really cruel and vicious.
The two worst things about the right are, they exude such contempt for neighboring lands and they want Mexican citizens to live in a craphole like Mexico.
I was reading about Sec. DeVos and possible Title IX guidance changes today when it hit me: you smart Lefty people are all about consent, aren't you?
A nation's immigration policy is our form of giving consent. If you're violating that consent, you're basically a nation-rapist. Right?
And as we know consent can be withdrawn AT ANY TIME. You'd never say it was "cruel" or "inhumane" for one party of a sexual encounter to revoke consent during that encounter, for whatever reason, would you?
Well when President Obama was head of the Executive he gave consent for all sorts of stuff--deference towards Dreamers among them. President Trump is the head of the Executive now, and he has withdrawn consent.
The Left respects that, don't they?!
You guys realize that at worst--if the legislature does nothing--then we'd be going back to the policy that existed a mere 5 years ago, right?
Gee I thought at worst we would be deporting 100s of thousands of people who have been in this country (many since infancy), through no wrongdoing of their own.
Nothing inhumane in that.
The two worst things about the right are, they exude such contempt for neighboring lands and they want Mexican citizens to live in a craphole like Mexico.
Marcus Aurelius couldn't have said this better.
A nation's immigration policy is our form of giving consent. If you're violating that consent, you're basically a nation-rapist. Right?
And as we know consent can be withdrawn AT ANY TIME. You'd never say it was "cruel" or "inhumane" for one party of a sexual encounter to revoke consent during that encounter, for whatever reason, would you?
"Nation-rapist" analogy??
Just no.
I think a better comparison is illegals as scabs, here in America taking jobs that Americans won't do for the money on offer. You guys have bo idea what a string of polo ponies would cost without illegals. Imagine paying taxes, overtime, benefits to all of the stable hands? Preposterous!!
I really hate the term "Dreamer".
Thieves?
I really hate the term "Dreamer".
Thieves?
Why not just call them sp*cks, Darrell? You know you're itchin' too.
Brookzene said...
"I might have been wrong about this. I may have misled myself here. In general I shouldn't be listened to when I get into a hardened confrontational core with Trumpists or righties."
Not really sure what you mean about getting into a hardened confrontational core. Maybe we can just agree that in general, you shouldn't be listened to?
Maybe we can just agree that in general, you shouldn't be listened to?
You are always welcome not to.
Brookzene: you don't like the analogy, but we as a nation have immigration laws, and those laws represent our consent. Violations of that law violates our consent, doesn't it? Lots of people are arguing that it's wrong to change or rescind our consent, but smart Lefty people have been telling me for many years now that one party to a transaction can rescind their consent at any time.
Right? President Trump is rescinding the consent President Obama gave. President Trump is doing so openly, with fair notice to all.
Are you saying that some people have a right to ignore the withdrawal of consent? That's...that's not the kind of thing smart empathetic people allow, Brookzene.
"Marcus Aurelius couldn't have said this better."
I think you may want to check with Cicero for this sort of thing.
Why not just call them sp*cks, Darrell? You know you're itchin' too.
It's "spics" (from Hispanic) and "to", not too.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा