Four big things wrong with the Obama Dream Act Amnesty

This issue is now dead, and the far right extremists will not renew the power they once because of it for five reasons.

1. The executive order is constitutional because it brings equity to a terrible mess.

.

HAHAHA. Now that is truly silly. Constitutionality has nothing to do with equality. Hell the constitution sanctioned slavery!!!
 
no one is getting amnesty, they will get work permits

We are merely parsing words if we argue about "amnesty". If illegal immigrants get work permits, that is one more step towards permanent presence. I enjoy L.A. Times articles about people who graduated with advanced degrees from UCLA and now can't work because they are illegal immigrants. Which begs the question: why were they admitted to UCLA in the first place, to the exclusion of a citizen applicant?

Yep, screwing the young that are legal citizens.
 
As to the free K-12, our Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decided back in the 70's that we could not charge tuition to illegal aliens.

.

Actually it was 1982 in the notorious case of plyler v doe when the SC decreed that the constitution demands american taxpayers provide free k-12 for people that aren't even allowed to be in the country!! Needless to say the constitution never mentions education for anyone let alone illegals. The judges took their bribes and screwed the american people yet again.

ummm... not really.

Plyler v Doe struck down a Texas law because it violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. It was a close vote (5-4), but they got it right when the majority opinion stated:
under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," and that, without an education, these undocumented children, "already disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."
 
Um, four things wrong with Mr. Soetoro's Amnesty?? Ahh let's see, one...It violates the oath of office, two... It violates the oath of office... Three... It violates the oath of office...And... Finally four... It...Ahhh.... Violates the oath of office. That's enough "wrongs" for me.
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
1. Big problem is it's unconstitutional. The C says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and here is obozo telling millions of criminal invaders he's gonna ignore laws passed by congress and let them stay here.

2. It's an insult to the 25 million unemployed americans for Obozo to give amnesty AND WORK PERMITS (!!!) to millions of people that aren't even allowed to be here.

3. There will be no investigation of the applicants. They will simply say they meet the standards and the govt will take their word. Obozo says 800,000 illegals will participate but it will be ten times that.

4. It's a pack of lies. How can you call a 30 year old person a "kid". The press should crucify Obozo for such a brazen lie but, as always, they give the black president a pass they would never give a white one.

1. Limited resources require efficient use..

2. They're already here and working. No new pressure on jobs.

3. Got a cite for what appears to be BS, but the righties swallow whole?

4. Nobody's calling a 30 year old a kid. You're talking to a mixed audience here. That stuff only works when preaching to the choir.
 
Obama never said he would ignore the laws, just that he would use the limited resources of the executive branch to go after the worst of illegals. If you think that is bad perhaps you should not vote for an asshole who thins law enforcement needs to be cut because there are just too many police officers. It is true that our law enforcement community has been cut and cut again, and if you do not have the police to catch all the criminals then you should focus on the real bad guys and not the ones crossing the border to pic fruit.

In case you have not heard this Country is fucking broke.....:cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
[

Plyler v Doe struck down a Texas law because it violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. It was a close vote (5-4), but they got it right when the majority opinion stated:
under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," and that, without an education, these undocumented children, "already disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."

HAHAHAHA. So now you want to give rights to illegals cause "who knows - maybe someday they'll be legal".!!!

Anyway, my main point stands. Education is never mentioned in the constitution so by the tenth amendment it's a state matter.
 
1. Big problem is it's unconstitutional. The C says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and here is obozo telling millions of criminal invaders he's gonna ignore laws passed by congress and let them stay here.

2. It's an insult to the 25 million unemployed americans for Obozo to give amnesty AND WORK PERMITS (!!!) to millions of people that aren't even allowed to be here.

3. There will be no investigation of the applicants. They will simply say they meet the standards and the govt will take their word. Obozo says 800,000 illegals will participate but it will be ten times that.

4. It's a pack of lies. How can you call a 30 year old person a "kid". The press should crucify Obozo for such a brazen lie but, as always, they give the black president a pass they would never give a white one.

1. Limited resources require efficient use..

Then get congress to change the law and allow these illegals to stay. But for obozo to just say he's gonna ignore the law is 100% wrong.
 
This issue is now dead, and the far right extremists will not renew the power they once because of it for five reasons.

1. The executive order is constitutional because it brings equity to a terrible mess.

.

HAHAHA. Now that is truly silly. Constitutionality has nothing to do with equality. Hell the constitution sanctioned slavery!!!

:lol: You feel for it. I gave a reason. You gave your opinion. Executive Orders are constitutional is the answer. Get over it because it won't change under Romney, only expand.
 
Last edited:
[

Plyler v Doe struck down a Texas law because it violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. It was a close vote (5-4), but they got it right when the majority opinion stated:
under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," and that, without an education, these undocumented children, "already disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."

HAHAHAHA. So now you want to give rights to illegals cause "who knows - maybe someday they'll be legal".!!!

Anyway, my main point stands. Education is never mentioned in the constitution so by the tenth amendment it's a state matter.

really?

interesting. thanks for your expertise.

i'm sure you have actual caselaw to substantiate your opinion on that subject.
 
This issue is now dead, and the far right extremists will not renew the power they once because of it for five reasons.

1. The executive order is constitutional because it brings equity to a terrible mess.

.

HAHAHA. Now that is truly silly. Constitutionality has nothing to do with equality. Hell the constitution sanctioned slavery!!!

you mean that hole "equal protection" thing is just a suggestion?
 
This issue is now dead, and the far right extremists will not renew the power they once because of it for five reasons.

1. The executive order is constitutional because it brings equity to a terrible mess.

.

HAHAHA. Now that is truly silly. Constitutionality has nothing to do with equality. Hell the constitution sanctioned slavery!!!

you mean that hole "equal protection" thing is just a suggestion?



Wow, I knew you had a strong aversion to "W" but I didn't realize you'd taken to discontinuing use of the letter altogether... :eusa_eh:
 
[

Plyler v Doe struck down a Texas law because it violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. It was a close vote (5-4), but they got it right when the majority opinion stated:
under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," and that, without an education, these undocumented children, "already disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."

HAHAHAHA. So now you want to give rights to illegals cause "who knows - maybe someday they'll be legal".!!!

Anyway, my main point stands. Education is never mentioned in the constitution so by the tenth amendment it's a state matter.

More to the point, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE ECONOMIC EQUALITY. Plyler v. Doe is Judicial legislation at its finest. The Supreme Court decided to wade into matters of socio-economic class. If the illegal alien of today becomes the illegal alien of tomorrow, that reflects a failure to enforce the immigration laws, period.
 
[

Plyler v Doe struck down a Texas law because it violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. It was a close vote (5-4), but they got it right when the majority opinion stated:

HAHAHAHA. So now you want to give rights to illegals cause "who knows - maybe someday they'll be legal".!!!

Anyway, my main point stands. Education is never mentioned in the constitution so by the tenth amendment it's a state matter.

More to the point, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE ECONOMIC EQUALITY. Plyler v. Doe is Judicial legislation at its finest. The Supreme Court decided to wade into matters of socio-economic class. If the illegal alien of today becomes the illegal alien of tomorrow, that reflects a failure to enforce the immigration laws, period.

Immigration is a federal matter, end of the states' rights argument. The 10th is folded into the federal supremacy clause.
 
HAHAHAHA. So now you want to give rights to illegals cause "who knows - maybe someday they'll be legal".!!!

Anyway, my main point stands. Education is never mentioned in the constitution so by the tenth amendment it's a state matter.

More to the point, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE ECONOMIC EQUALITY. Plyler v. Doe is Judicial legislation at its finest. The Supreme Court decided to wade into matters of socio-economic class. If the illegal alien of today becomes the illegal alien of tomorrow, that reflects a failure to enforce the immigration laws, period.

Immigration is a federal matter, end of the states' rights argument. The 10th is folded into the federal supremacy clause.

The Tenth Amendment has more vitality than you may suspect, especially with the current U.S. Supreme Court. What has "immigration" to do with the issue of school funding? Incidentally, you may be surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Arizona statute designed to deal with the federal government's complete failure to defend the borders. As Justice Scalia pointed out in questioning during oral argument, what is "sovereignty" if an entity can't defend its borders?
 
1. Big problem is it's unconstitutional. The C says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and here is obozo telling millions of criminal invaders he's gonna ignore laws passed by congress and let them stay here.

2. It's an insult to the 25 million unemployed americans for Obozo to give amnesty AND WORK PERMITS (!!!) to millions of people that aren't even allowed to be here.

3. There will be no investigation of the applicants. They will simply say they meet the standards and the govt will take their word. Obozo says 800,000 illegals will participate but it will be ten times that.

4. It's a pack of lies. How can you call a 30 year old person a "kid". The press should crucify Obozo for such a brazen lie but, as always, they give the black president a pass they would never give a white one.

1. Limited resources require efficient use..

Then get congress to change the law and allow these illegals to stay. But for obozo to just say he's gonna ignore the law is 100% wrong.

No it isn't. It's executive discretion. He's not ignoring the law, he's focusing it.
 
More to the point, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE ECONOMIC EQUALITY. Plyler v. Doe is Judicial legislation at its finest. The Supreme Court decided to wade into matters of socio-economic class. If the illegal alien of today becomes the illegal alien of tomorrow, that reflects a failure to enforce the immigration laws, period.

Immigration is a federal matter, end of the states' rights argument. The 10th is folded into the federal supremacy clause.

The Tenth Amendment has more vitality than you may suspect, especially with the current U.S. Supreme Court. What has "immigration" to do with the issue of school funding? Incidentally, you may be surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Arizona statute designed to deal with the federal government's complete failure to defend the borders. As Justice Scalia pointed out in questioning during oral argument, what is "sovereignty" if an entity can't defend its borders?

The correct question is "what does education have to do with immigration", since the latter is greater than the former. Scalia is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream Constitutional intepretation; he will need a majority to make his exceptionalism mainstream. I suspect he will fail.
 
Immigration is a federal matter, end of the states' rights argument. The 10th is folded into the federal supremacy clause.

The Tenth Amendment has more vitality than you may suspect, especially with the current U.S. Supreme Court. What has "immigration" to do with the issue of school funding? Incidentally, you may be surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Arizona statute designed to deal with the federal government's complete failure to defend the borders. As Justice Scalia pointed out in questioning during oral argument, what is "sovereignty" if an entity can't defend its borders?

The correct question is "what does education have to do with immigration", since the latter is greater than the former. Scalia is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream Constitutional intepretation; he will need a majority to make his exceptionalism mainstream. I suspect he will fail.

I suspect that President Romney will appoint like-minded Justices, dedicated to Original Intent.
 

Forum List

Back
Top