57% Non-Whites Say the US is Moving in a Positive Direction. Only 33% of Whites do.

[katsteve2012]

What exactly is it that they feel so positive about?

There's a black man in office who wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegals and is refusing to deport non-violent immigration offenders and allow them to attend college with federal pell grants. Not to mention he utilized and executive order so as to give them a pass.

So what? Business as usual. Ronald Reagan started it all in 1986 by irresponsibly granting amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens which is probably a very conservative estimate.

The Supreme Court declared proposition 187 to be unconstitutional when it was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in the state of California. That was a slap in the face to the registered voters of the state.

Reagan certainly was not black, nor was it a "black" supreme court that disregarded the will of the voters.

 

[Synthaholic]

57% Non-Whites Say the US is Moving in a Positive Direction. Only 33% of Whites do.

^^^ Playing the Race Card. Typical conservative tactic.

 

[Publius1787]

What exactly is it that they feel so positive about?

There's a black man in office who wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegals and is refusing to deport non-violent immigration offenders and allow them to attend college with federal pell grants. Not to mention he utilized and executive order so as to give them a pass.

So what? Business as usual. Ronald Reagan started it all in 1986 by irresponsibly granting amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens which is probably a very conservative estimate.

The Supreme Court declared proposition 187 to be unconstitutional when it was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in the state of California. That was a slap in the face to the registered voters of the state.

Reagan certainly was not black, nor was it a "black" supreme court that disregarded the will of the voters.

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

 

[Publius1787]

Even you have to admit that was pretty weak. What does this do for your OP? How do you resolve this? I mean first you said it was all Blacks voting their color and now that I wont let you move the goalpost you say its immigration? Why are all your OPs so easy to dismantle?

Now here is what I see. All the non-whites vote with intelligence and for opportunity for all people. Whites appear to like the theory in good economic times but taper off when the reality they will not be top dog if the trend continues hits home during bad economic times.

Weak? the immigration backlog from Mexico is over a 20 year wait and there are currently 12,000,000 illegals in the United States, many of whom have had children. Go to any international market and pick up a Hispanic news paper will ya?

I never understood opportunity as welfare but ok, if you say so.

Yes weak. What does the immigration reform have to do with Black people?

I've explained both hispanic and black reasons already. What more did you want me to do? In any case it's going to be funny to watch the hispanics out perform the blacks when they get amnesty.

 

[katsteve2012]

There's a black man in office who wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegals and is refusing to deport non-violent immigration offenders and allow them to attend college with federal pell grants. Not to mention he utilized and executive order so as to give them a pass.

So what? Business as usual. Ronald Reagan started it all in 1986 by irresponsibly granting amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens which is probably a very conservative estimate.

The Supreme Court declared proposition 187 to be unconstitutional when it was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in the state of California. That was a slap in the face to the registered voters of the state.

Reagan certainly was not black, nor was it a "black" supreme court that disregarded the will of the voters.

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexnowrasteh/2012/07/30/president-obama-deporter-in-chief/

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)

 

[Asclepias]

So what? Business as usual. Ronald Reagan started it all in 1986 by irresponsibly granting amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens which is probably a very conservative estimate.

The Supreme Court declared proposition 187 to be unconstitutional when it was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in the state of California. That was a slap in the face to the registered voters of the state.

Reagan certainly was not black, nor was it a "black" supreme court that disregarded the will of the voters.

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)

Pubis already lost my interest in this thread. He made a fatal mistake as always in his OP. He didnt realize non-white meant all ethnicities and made it a Black and white thing. He can talk to himself at this point.

 

[Truthmatters]

hes a racist

its why people like him back all the republican cheating in elections and they pretend that the republican party has not been caught repeatedly in the last few decades

 

[Publius1787]

So what? Business as usual. Ronald Reagan started it all in 1986 by irresponsibly granting amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens which is probably a very conservative estimate.

The Supreme Court declared proposition 187 to be unconstitutional when it was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in the state of California. That was a slap in the face to the registered voters of the state.

Reagan certainly was not black, nor was it a "black" supreme court that disregarded the will of the voters.

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)

You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

http://ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html
History of Proposition 187

Prop 187 was passed by the voters on Nov. 8, 1994 to deny public benefits to illegal aliens in California.

The next day several lawsuits were filed in California state court (Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), ACLU, and others.

On Nov. 11, 1994 a "temporary restraining order (TRO)" was issued by Federal Judge Matthew Byrne (it was filed in Federal Judge Marianna Pfaelzer's court, but she was out (vacation?), so Byrne did the TRO.

An answer was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren in state court.

Judge Pfaelzer came back and issued a permanent injunction pending trial. Her rationale was essentially a case in Texas in the 1980's (Plyler v. Doe). Texas tried to deny public education to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court ruled for the illegals, based on two pillars:

1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and

2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

The cases were consolidated into Judge Pfaelzer's court in 1995.

There were hearings, filings, hearings, filings ...

In 1996 California (Att'y Gen. Dan Lungren) said that Prop 187 was not in conflict with federal law.

In September 1996 federal immigration law was enacted, and in 1997 Lungren asked Judge Pfaelzer for a summary dismissal. (The 1996 federal law included Sec. 133 - that local law enforcement can cooperate with the INS)

Judge Pfaelzer said NO to summary dismissal and ruled for plaintiffs; Lungren said he'll appeal.

Lungren appealed in 9th District Circuit Court in late 1997. FOR SIX MONTHS LUNGREN TOOK NO ACTION - IT SAT THERE. HE SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE CASE ALONG!

Then came the gubernatorial campaign of 1998, and Gray Davis was elected in November. The appeal process was still sitting silently in court because Lungren had not moved it along.

Davis was elected. The plaintiffs requested "mediation" in the 9th District Court, the court agreed to "mediation".

We know what happened then - Davis (who vehemently opposed Prop 187) "represented" FOR Prop 187. Neither the proponent of Prop 187 nor anyone else who co-sponsored Prop 187 was allowed in the bogus "mediation".

Governor Davis refused to allow the appeal to proceed and dropped the appeal, essentially KILLING PROP 187 against the will of the voters. This after having promised to support the appeal during his campaign.

Even the most vocal plaintiffs against Prop 187 said they were afraid that if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be held to be constitutional, reversing Plyler v. Doe.

 

[Publius1787]

hes a racist

its why people like him back all the republican cheating in elections and they pretend that the republican party has not been caught repeatedly in the last few decades

If you can find the thread where I said that whites are genetically superior to blacks I will gladly never post again.

 

[katsteve2012]

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)

You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

History of Proposition 187
History of Proposition 187

Prop 187 was passed by the voters on Nov. 8, 1994 to deny public benefits to illegal aliens in California.

The next day several lawsuits were filed in California state court (Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), ACLU, and others.

On Nov. 11, 1994 a "temporary restraining order (TRO)" was issued by Federal Judge Matthew Byrne (it was filed in Federal Judge Marianna Pfaelzer's court, but she was out (vacation?), so Byrne did the TRO.

An answer was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren in state court.

Judge Pfaelzer came back and issued a permanent injunction pending trial. Her rationale was essentially a case in Texas in the 1980's (Plyler v. Doe). Texas tried to deny public education to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court ruled for the illegals, based on two pillars:

1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and

2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

The cases were consolidated into Judge Pfaelzer's court in 1995.

There were hearings, filings, hearings, filings ...

In 1996 California (Att'y Gen. Dan Lungren) said that Prop 187 was not in conflict with federal law.

In September 1996 federal immigration law was enacted, and in 1997 Lungren asked Judge Pfaelzer for a summary dismissal. (The 1996 federal law included Sec. 133 - that local law enforcement can cooperate with the INS)

Judge Pfaelzer said NO to summary dismissal and ruled for plaintiffs; Lungren said he'll appeal.

Lungren appealed in 9th District Circuit Court in late 1997. FOR SIX MONTHS LUNGREN TOOK NO ACTION - IT SAT THERE. HE SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE CASE ALONG!

Then came the gubernatorial campaign of 1998, and Gray Davis was elected in November. The appeal process was still sitting silently in court because Lungren had not moved it along.

Davis was elected. The plaintiffs requested "mediation" in the 9th District Court, the court agreed to "mediation".

We know what happened then - Davis (who vehemently opposed Prop 187) "represented" FOR Prop 187. Neither the proponent of Prop 187 nor anyone else who co-sponsored Prop 187 was allowed in the bogus "mediation".

Governor Davis refused to allow the appeal to proceed and dropped the appeal, essentially KILLING PROP 187 against the will of the voters. This after having promised to support the appeal during his campaign.

Even the most vocal plaintiffs against Prop 187 said they were afraid that if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be held to be constitutional, reversing Plyler v. Doe.

Quote: Originally Posted by katsteve2012
Quote: Originally Posted by Publius1787

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.
Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)
You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

Your default is consistently that "your arguments are not addressed, even when they obviously are.

There was nothing to address that you "argued", which was any different than your typical rhetoric.

When I read "A BLACK PRESIDENT wants to ________" that was enough.

The fact that you would imply that the Presidents policy on immigration has to do with him being black is the reasoning of a simpleton, which is why I pointed out Reagan's failed amnesty initiative.

 

[GreenBean]

Yes, I've seen this voting skin color over substance before.

Case in Point - The last two Presidential Elections

 

[Publius1787]

Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)

You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

Quote: Originally Posted by katsteve2012
Quote: Originally Posted by Publius1787

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.
Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)
You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

Your default is consistently that "your arguments are not addressed, even when they obviously are.

There was nothing to address that you "argued", which was any different than your typical rhetoric.

When I read "A BLACK PRESIDENT wants to ________" that was enough.

The fact that you would imply that the Presidents policy on immigration has to do with him being black is the reasoning of a simpleton, which is why I pointed out Reagan's failed amnesty initiative.

I would suggest you re-read that in the context it was addressed. The question was why black and Hispanic minorities support Obama. I answered it. If you have another point of view then fine, lets hear it. But is no question that ideological consistency is much more among blacks than whites and I have explained black collective culture before. I have cited numerous scandals that resulted in re-election of black candidates among a black constituency. I have pointed to the immigration policy that attracts Hispanic voters at the determent of black economic well-being and can come to no other conclusion than that his skin color is more important than substance among blacks. Blacks turned out in droves for Obama as a higher percentage than any other time in their electoral history. Why? Skin color. Blacks continue to support Obama more than any other demographic. Why? Skin color.

 

[katsteve2012]

You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

Quote: Originally Posted by katsteve2012
Quote: Originally Posted by Publius1787

I figured you for a smarter guy who wouldn't engage in the flawed reasoning that since a wrong was committed then subsequent wrongs are excused, which of course, is embodied in your "so what" comment.

That aside, Reagan granted amnesty to illegals with the understanding that the border would be secured. Congress never provided the funding for it and there have been 7 times since then with no secure border. Perhaps it's about time we learned our lesson? https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...-congress.html

Proposition 187 was struck down on the basis of the following
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.
Truth be told, it is your MO to racialize ALL of your threads with a theme that unanimously begins and ends with "the blacks" being your mantra for all of what is negative in America. Which is precisely why I stopped responding to you some time ago.

My sole reason for stating "so what" to preface my comments to you was for precisely that reason.

Based on the way that the current Obstructionists GOP conducts business with our President today, if the same scenario unfolded with an Obama proposal or initiative not having the desired effect, who would be blamed?

Certainly not the GOP. it would rest squarely on the Presidents shoulders just as the failed amnesty act of 1986 should forever be a part of Reagans legacy.

For that matter, it is probably a safe bet that his immigration reform proposal will never come to fruition because the obstinate obstructionists that he has to work with, who are more concerned with orchestrating the failure of his administration than seeing the country pprosper under his leadership.

So far his administration has been responsible for deporting more illegal immigrants than any other administration, and shuld be a supportive point in his favor for positive immigration reform.

President Obama: Deporter-In-Chief - Forbes

Secondly, What the heck did the State of Texas have to do with an initiative that was voted on in Cailfornia? You really lost me on that one.

California: Proposition 187 Unconstitutional - Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Asclepias was doing a fine job of discussing this thread with you, so direct your answers to him please.

I am out.


*(footnote to Asclepias, I hope you don't mind me deferring to you on this. I do not have the patience or the desire to engage in another word of dialogue with Publius)
You confused the hell out of me. The California proposition 187 was years after Reagan and it never made it to the Supreme Court. The Texas prop 187 did in fact make it to the Supreme Court Plyler v. Doe. As far as the rest of your garbage it did not address a single thing I argued.

Your default is consistently that "your arguments are not addressed, even when they obviously are.

There was nothing to address that you "argued", which was any different than your typical rhetoric.

When I read "A BLACK PRESIDENT wants to ________" that was enough.

The fact that you would imply that the Presidents policy on immigration has to do with him being black is the reasoning of a simpleton, which is why I pointed out Reagan's failed amnesty initiative.

I would suggest you re-read that in the context it was addressed. The question was why black and Hispanic minorities support Obama. I answered it. If you have another point of view then fine, lets hear it. But is no question that ideological consistency is much more among blacks than whites and I have explained black collective culture before. I have cited numerous scandals that resulted in re-election of black candidates among a black constituency. I have pointed to the immigration policy that attracts Hispanic voters at the determent of black economic well-being and can come to no other conclusion than that his skin color is more important than substance among blacks.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23uedLR4Lgg]Obama voters were black,racist,and ignorant. Check out these interviews. - YouTube[/ame]

Why would I waste time engaging in guessing what "context" you are reasoning within?

That would prove nothing as you could redefine your "context" at will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius does rephrase his context as he gets chased around on his them, multiculturalism bad and 1950s good.

What he does not understand is that we can't go back to the fifties even if we wanted, but 90% of America does not, so it's immaterial.

 

[Publius1787]

I would suggest you re-read that in the context it was addressed. The question was why black and Hispanic minorities support Obama. I answered it. If you have another point of view then fine, lets hear it. But is no question that ideological consistency is much more among blacks than whites and I have explained black collective culture before. I have cited numerous scandals that resulted in re-election of black candidates among a black constituency. I have pointed to the immigration policy that attracts Hispanic voters at the determent of black economic well-being and can come to no other conclusion than that his skin color is more important than substance among blacks.

Obama voters were black,racist,and ignorant. Check out these interviews. - YouTube

Why would I waste time engaging in guessing what "context" you are reasoning within?

That would prove nothing as you could redefine your "context" at will.

Guessing is certainly not necessary. A 6th grade level of reading comprehension should suffice.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius does rephrase his context as he gets chased around on his them, multiculturalism bad and 1950s good.

What he does not understand is that we can't go back to the fifties even if we wanted, but 90% of America does not, so it's immaterial.

Pont to my statement where I said we should go back to the 50's.

 

[Steinlight]

Well, I guess 57% of non-whites are morons, as are 33% of whites.

 

[MaryL]

I don't know were to go with statistics cherry-picked off the internet. But, anyway to the point here: I think that the numbers of Whites that question this country's direction (whatever that IS) 100%...Take Obama, A biracial man that most whites voted for to salve their poor itto-bity consciences . I take away from this that liberals are closeted racist that believe the better half of Obama is White and THAT is the half they voted for. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Liberals pretend they are going to end racism by ostracizing other whites that won't tolerate black crime. Liberals are good at pretending and superficiality. Heaven forbid they examine the high black crime rate with equal aplomb. Heaven forbid people be held to the same standards across the board.

 

[MaryL]

Noticing the high black crime rate, particularly if you are white, that is a no-no. That offends , its…“racist“. How many people here have been hurt by a racism? Not offended, but harmed by REAL racism? Have you been , raped, attacked, vandalized or harmed in any way? No? No, but racism is just creepy. Racism is an interesting abstraction. It’s fun to criticize, mock and question . It’s an easy target. But, let’s not examine black cultural dysfunction, that would be too specific. On the other hand , you grab your purse close, or run to your car or shy away from black males on the street because...just because. No reason. You are a liberal, you know better. That wouldn’t make you racist or anything. You don’t live in a gated community with a HOA because you fear those poor poor black people. You are enlightened and know better. You aren't racist, Heck no.

 

[katsteve2012]

Why would I waste time engaging in guessing what "context" you are reasoning within?

That would prove nothing as you could redefine your "context" at will.

Guessing is certainly not necessary. A 6th grade level of reading comprehension should suffice.

I can only assume that this is yet another of your thinly veiled bait methods? We both know that this is has nothing to do with "reading comprehension".