Federal Judge Slaps Obama Down

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We're out of the recession, unemployment is down, we have the ACA, the country is no more "Balkanized" than it was under W -- there's no down side.

Vette lives in an alternate reality of his own creation.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's called the real world, as opposed to Obama World.

He's gone full NEM/BusyBody.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

BS. "Out of the recession" is technical crap. The alleged lower unemployment rate is statistical fabrication. The ACA is unwanted, not working, and will probably be ended in the courts. The biggest downside is we have to all sit around and wonder how many total fuck ups Obama can create between now ans 2016.

Let's see.

Out of the recession - more than 12 quarters of positive economic growth - CHECK

Unemployment rate - trending steadily down since 2010 - CHECK

The ACA isn't working - Millions of people who couldn't get health insurance have it now. You may not like it, but it's working as well as it can after being hamstrung by Republicans. - CHECK

The ACA will probably be ended in the courts - Challenges to the ACA haven't fared well in THE Court. Even with the SCOTUS stacked with GOP appointees. - Goo luck with that one

So far you're right about exactly ONE of your statements. The misinformation campaign has managed to turn some people against the ACA, about as many who don't approve of it because they wanted single payer not this aborted attempt by the GOP to sink UHC in this country.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mark_j]

Uh oh, did Obama's Justice Department lie to a Federal Judge?

Did the Obama Administration Lie to a Federal Judge about Amnesty?


by RYAN LOVELACE March 5, 2015 1:15 PM The Texas attorney general is going to court to find out. Did the Obama administration lie to a federal judge about the President’s executive actions on immigration? The Texas attorney general’s office is filing a motion for discovery to try and find out. The motion seeks to uncover whether Justice Department lawyers explicitly deceived federal judge Andrew Hanen, who issued the injunction blocking Obama’s amnesty. “In an apparent attempt to quickly execute President Obama’s unlawful, unconstitutional amnesty plan, the Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” said Texas attorney general Ken Paxton in a statement. “The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case.”

On Tuesday, the Justice Department acknowledged that the Obama administration had begun implementing the executive amnesty in advance of the federal judge’s injunction, and had granted expanded deferred action on deportation to approximately 100,000 illegal-immigrant applicants before the March start date authorized by the president. The Justice Department had explicitly told Hanen otherwise, stating that “no applications” for programs relating to the president’s executive actions had been granted, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York noted on Wednesday.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...lie-federal-judge-about-amnesty-ryan-lovelace

Here's the problem; what are you gonna do about it?

Deport them all?..... Fat chance...

You or I may not like it that this was done arbitrarily, but in the end what else are you going to do?

Seems that it would be better to get these folks registered and on the tax rolls than to let them languish as a drain on society..

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

Here's the real problem, a rogue President acting without congressional authority; and I don't buy into the moral dilemma BS that we have to start conferring benefits and citizenship on millions of foreigners who broke into our country because our leaders lack the balls to carry out their oaths of office.

Are you aware that you're insane?

 

[mark_j]

Here's the real problem, a rogue President acting without congressional authority; and I don't buy into the moral dilemma BS that we have to start conferring benefits and citizenship on millions of foreigners who broke into our country because our leaders lack the balls to carry out their oaths of office.

You still didn't answer the question.. It really doesn't matter if they did this or that or if you don't "buy the moral dillema BS". The problem is a very large number of undocumented residents.

Since it is not practical to deport them all, what are you going to do about it?

 

[Que]

You still didn't answer the question.. It really doesn't matter if they did this or that or if you don't "buy the moral dillema BS". The problem is a very large number of undocumented residents.

Since it is not practical to deport them all, what are you going to do about it?

If 15 or 20 million citizens just decided to refuse to pay taxes I am sure they would find a way to deal with the logistics.

 

[miles]

If 15 or 20 million citizens just decided to refuse to pay taxes I am sure they would find a way to deal with the logistics.

In Obamaland they would call them "unfunded taxpayers" and give them amnesty.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If 15 or 20 million citizens just decided to refuse to pay taxes I am sure they would find a way to deal with the logistics.

Yes, they would send angry letters.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yes, they would send angry letters.

Maybe at first, then they would start seizing bank accounts and garnishing wages.

But what sort of "Patriot" would refuse to pay the tax they owe?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

People like to start off trying to put you in a box by stating the mantra:

"Since it is not practical to deport them all, what are you going to do about it?"

The United States government who rounded up all of the Japanese in WWII, who fired 10 million employees in three years after that war, who managed the monstrous logistics of two monumental military campaigns during that war and afterward, can sort this problem out if it was told to do so.

Whether it could is not the point. The point is that if "sort this problem out" means mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, that is a solution far worse than the nonproblem. It is "not practical" not because impossible but because undesirable: The economic disruption would be devastating, the social/human costs would be even worse.

 

[RjThoughts]

People like to start off trying to put you in a box by stating the mantra:

"Since it is not practical to deport them all, what are you going to do about it?"

The United States government who rounded up all of the Japanese in WWII, who fired 10 million employees in three years after that war, who managed the monstrous logistics of two monumental military campaigns during that war and afterward, can sort this problem out if it was told to do so.

You're talking about the military and private businesses in the 1940s, Old Dude!

You're going with a black mark in this country as a reason why the US can do the deportations. Good move. So you also believe that the "Trail of Tears" never happened and that the Five Civilized Tribes willingly left NC, SC, and GA to live on reservations in the "Indian Territory"?

Rounding up the Japanese on the west coast, and some Germans and Italians on the East Coast, was both repugnant and wrong on so many levels. The "Firing" of 10 million people wasn't like that: Many of the women willingly left their wartime positions, since they knew it was "just for the war."

 

[unregistered]

 

[cowslinger64]

Securing the border like you want is beyond ridiculous, in effectiveness and cost.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...p-to-40000-per-illegal-immigrant-apprehended/


Richard: You referred in your opening statement to the cost of the fence.

Jacobs: It is impossible to pin down exactly, but there are some estimates. In a 2007 study the non-partisan Congressional Research Office pegged the bill to construct and maintain (for 25 years) a 700 mile fence to be $49 billion. This is the same type of double fences contemplated in today’s bill. That was six years ago…..materials and labor prices have increased and then there is my “law of government”……..things always take longer and cost more, usually much more, than they tell us. So what’s the cost today….you pick a number.

And that’s just the beginning. We haven’t tallied the costs for all the new ancillary surveillance paraphernalia; unmanned aerial drones, helicopters, radars, night vision goggles, high tech cameras, airboats, blimps, other high speed power boats, who knows what else…..and then factor all the costs of maintenance on this high tech equipment…..over time it’s well into the billions.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No it isn't. It's the Border Patrol and ICE doing their fucking jobs. When an illegal alien is encountered, he's deported, no gigantic dragnet is needed. The economic impact of illegal immigration is economically devastating, and I have posted its cost to taxpayers in the past. They broke into the country and are entitled to zero benefits.

Here's what they cost us:

The myths

Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes

Immigrants pay property taxes either via home ownership or rental, as well as sales tax when purchasing goods in the U.S. Depending on their employers, the immigrants also pay federal, state, and local income taxes. However, since illegal immigrants cannot legally be employed, they are often employed "off the books" in casual or seasonal work and are paid in cash, without taxes deducted and often below minimum wage. Employers often threaten to report immigrant workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement if the worker complains about wages or working conditions.[1]

Since illegal immigrants often have fake or stolen documents (especially Social Security numbers), they often cannot benefit from Social Security taxes withheld from wages. The amount in question is evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and Social Security numbers), which grew $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.[2][3]

Immigrants come here to get "welfare"

Immigrants come to work and to reunite with family members.

Immigrant labor-force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S., unless the “study” was undertaken by an anti-immigrant group. One study estimates that immigrants earn nearly $240 billion a year. Studies find that immigrant tax payments total $20 to $85 billion more than the amount of government services they use.[4]

Since the welfare reform of 1996, when limits were implemented cutting off benefits to two years consecutively or five years cumulatively, this is a bogus accusation.

To immigrate into the US, you must have a sponsor (generally the family member, such as the spouse, bringing you into the country) who will testify, and provide proof, that he or she has enough money to support you, if you are unable to support yourself, or if you lose your job. This agreement means that until you naturalize as a U.S. citizen or have been a taxpayer for 10 years, your sponsor's income will be taken into consideration in deciding whether you are poor enough to qualify for means-tested benefits, and that if you do take those benefits, the government can sue your sponsor to recover those costs. You can also sue your sponsor if they fail to support you at the poverty level.

Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries

In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of foreign direct investment[wp].[5]

Also, if you are going to complain that immigrants send money back to their home countries, you have to also raise a stink that very often, the rich offshore their money in foreign banks.

Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans

The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with the lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. and foreign workers, and foreign-born students allow many U.S. graduate programs to keep their doors open. While there has been no comprehensive study done of immigrant-owned businesses, we have countless examples: in Silicon Valley, companies begun by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated more than $19.5 billion in sales and nearly 73,000 jobs in 2000.[6]

Illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants with little job skills or language skills often take the work seen by most Americans as "beneath them." Janitorial services, crop pickers and garbage collectors need workers, and they do not find them from high-school-educated, English-speaking citizens. As a demonstration of this fact, in Georgia, a 2011 crackdown on illegal immigrants caused many to be deported and more to flee the state. This caused a shortage of labor on the state's farms, indicating that illegal immigrants in that state do not compete very much with Americans for jobs.

Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy

During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum.
Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors and create jobs by establishing their own businesses, with an estimated annual benefit of $10 billion to the U.S. economy. According to Alan Greenspan, 70% of immigrants arrive when they are of prime working age.[7]

Due to welfare reform, legal immigrants are severely restricted from accessing public benefits, and illegal immigrants are even further precluded from anything other than emergency services. Anti-immigrant groups skew these figures by including programs used by U.S. citizen children of immigrants in their definition of immigrant welfare use, among other tactics.

Immigrants don’t want to learn English or become Americans

Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply. Greater than 33% of immigrants are naturalized citizens; given increased immigration in the 1990s, this figure will rise as more legal permanent residents become eligible for naturalization in the coming years. The number of immigrants naturalizing spiked sharply after two events: enactment of immigration and welfare reform laws in 1996, and the terrorist attacks in 2001.[8]

Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago

In the sense that they are coming to America from different parts of the world that is true. However, the percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%. Similar to accusations about today’s immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow émigrés. They also experienced the same types of discrimination that today’s immigrants face, and integrated within American culture at a similar rate. If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.[9]

Most immigrants cross the border illegally

Around 75% have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are here illegally, 40% overstayed temporary (nonimmigrant) visas.[10]

Weak U.S. border enforcement has led to high levels of illegal immigration

From 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrol’s budget increased sixfold and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hopes of deterring crossings. Instead, the illegal immigrant population doubled in that period, to 8 million - despite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S., compared with the number of jobs available to them, have created this current conundrum.[11]

The war on terrorism can be won through immigration restrictions

No security expert since September 11, 2001 has said that restrictive immigration measures would have prevented the terrorist attacks—instead, the key is good use of good intelligence. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal tourist or student visas (but some did overstay on those). Since 9/11, the myriad of measures targeting immigrants in the name of national security have netted no terrorism prosecutions. In fact, several of these measures could have the opposite effect and actually make us less safe, as targeted communities of immigrants are afraid to come forward with information.[12]

Illegal immigrants are the source of many communicable diseases

Anti-immigrant advocates including Lou Dobbs have claimed that Mexican border-crossers are the source of a rampant increase in leprosy. CDC and Department for Health and Human Services statistics do not bear this myth out.[13]

Illegal immigrants cause crime

Whilst a common cry of the anti immigration brigade - and the font of endless anecdotal "evidence" - the facts don't support this. According to FBI statistics in Arizona in 2008, despite the increased presence of illegal immigrants, crime rates have actually dropped, while the population has increased[14]. Only 8% of the prison population are immigrants, which also includes legal immigrants as well.[15]

The government is not enforcing existing immigration laws

By September 2011, the number of removed illegal immigrants from the United States during the Obama administration exceeded the number of removals during the entire George W. Bush administration.[16]

It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the government to round up and deport every illegal immigrant. The agency responsible for doing so, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has limited resources (finances, officers, jail spaces etc.) and must prioritize how they are spent (as well as figuring out how to spend resources on enforcing US Customs laws).[17] A migrant farm laborer's family probably is not as high on ICE's priority list for deportation as as a major drug trafficker might be. Furthermore, aliens involved in deportation proceedings are entitled to due process regardless of their status in the United States.[18]

Problems that arise when blanket deportation is attempted

It's fair to assume that industries that are largely dependent on the hard work of illegal immigrants would collapse, or at least suffer a major setback.

The cost of the program would be massive; law enforcement would need a huge amount of extra resources and manpower to put deportation into practice, and the courts (y'know, due process and all that) would also have a shortage of money and labor.

Many children of immigrants are natural-born US citizens, via the 14th Amendment's Citizenship clause. Hence, blanket deportation of illegal immigrants would involve expelling the parents of citizens, leaving millions with the choice of what amounts to exile (at least until they're adults) or living as orphans. And it brings up another logistical nightmare as many deported parents may choose to leave their children behind for what seems like a brighter future, dumping a massive load onto an already overburdened foster care system.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cowslinger64]

Here's what it costs:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

The Heritage Foundation??????? And you're whining about CNN??????


Fuckin kiddin me?

 

[unregistered]