Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you only quoted 1 thing i actually said.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And the rest were quotes central to your argument, all of which you quoted to try to argue against "shills".

If I quote Krugman in an economic argument, you'd tear me apart for quoting Krugman because I am supporting him by quoting him. You have done this in the past even, Brainy.

Why does the standard you try to apply to me not apply to you?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

cause im the admin.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I have to back blaen on this one. His argument style leaves something to be desired, but it's not like Braineack's "anything you say that might be construed as supporting Obama, regardless of its merit, is wrong" mentality exactly makes for fruitful discussion.

Obama is basically directing the prosecutorial arm to focus on criminal (other than immigration-related) and willful illegal immigrants. If a parent brings in a 5-year old and that kid grows up in the US and is otherwise a productive member of society, this executive order basically allows them to apply for a renewable two-year deferral.

I've got a buddy who went to engineering school in the US, worked for IBM on temp visas, but who couldn't get renewed. He has taken his education back to India and will improve their economy instead of ours. There are a few US natives on this board I would gladly trade to have him back.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

it had more to do with saying obama is "tough" on immigration because more deportations happened to happen during his presidency. He won't take credit for the economy, but immigration numbers, oh well sure whatever all is fair! hit a sour note that blaen loves to do.

and hell, lets ignore him suing FL and AZ for trying to just identify illegals or remove them from ballots.

and I'm not even against immigration, I wont real reform, but I don't want illegals, and i dont wan't freeloaders, and i wan't everyone to enjoy the wonders of our free nation - legally.

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

This matter can be simply labeled as a publicity stunt. It is very easy for those that are looking to gain from this act to overlook the manner in which the act itself it brought forward. Most immigrants see it a benevolent act, and will focus more on the conservative/republican's response in opposition that will rise therein.

I can already see, by all the hype in the news, how this is going to be turn into "good ol' bama vs. evil republicans" argument. Even though this act will never see the light of day it will serve as a great boost to Obama's run for re-election. Most ignore and fail to see that throughout his term the president did not take a solid position on the matters that now is gun-ho for i.e. illegal immigrants, gay marriage.

Increasing the surplus of unskilled workers will only damage the economy. The argument towards "they'll pay taxes now" in not a strong one. Although there are hard working individual that seek success, there those that seek to parasite the system.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

or a violation of his oath to office?

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

That too as it fundamentally breaks one of the main immigration laws.

bbundy

They correctly attributed the bank bailout to bush not the stimulus bill.

Factcheck is only partisan in the eyes of the lunitic fringe.

Bob

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

its owned by the Anneberg Foundation.


IB4 Walter Anneberg loved reagan blah blah blah.

bbundy

Interesting He was closely associated with Nixon (US ambassador to the UK) and Reagan. He has used false reporting in newspapers he owned to sink candidacies of democratic candidates in the past.

Now you’re telling me because of this connection Factcheck is somehow a Liberal partisan web site.

Bob

bbundy

I have some sympathy for these younger generation immigrants. My nephew is marrying a girl who was brought to the US from Mexico as a 6 year old. She has gone completely through our education system and is in college. She was denied an internship due to her immigration status however. She really doesn’t have much of any ties to Mexico. Deportation just seems morally wrong.

I think Obamas record shows him to have the best record on Immigration and securing borders as compared to all the prior presidents of my lifetime. Regan and Bush^2 were the worst they really didn’t want to stop it on the fundamental grounds that they considerd it free market and cheap unregulated labor for the “Job Creator” farming, yardcare, housekeeping, and construction industries.

Bob

mgtmse01

If I may...

1) I don't consider deporting illegals securing the border. To me, securing the border involves prevention of illegal immigration in the first place. If you have trespassers in your house and you kick them out but leave the door open, is your house secure? I think not.

2) I disagree in the deportation of murderers, rapists, molesters or any other violent offender. They should get their own express lane to the gas chamber.

3) One comment regarding the in-law who applied for a visa...We are not the only country who turns down visas on the basis of income. If I recall correctly, in some European countries (France to be exact) you have to have a minimum of 200k in the bank in order to be given a resident visa or enough money to support yourself without a job for one year, at which point your visa will be expired. Other options to live there are to be employed by a company that has an operation in that country who transfers you to France or to be hired by a French company.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I bet the Sinaloa cartel boss who's son was born in LA last year is really going to appreciate the Dream Act.

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

Is this thing still going through? or is any government body going to fight to oppose it?