Immigration

How Mitt Romney Will Lose Immigration Issue to Obama, Who Has Deported Record Numbers of Immigrants.

|

Hey Republicans, chew on this: Your presumptive GOP presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is managing to lose the issue of immigration to a president who has deported record number of immigrants.

Wha happened?

From a Bloomberg story on the topic:

President Barack Obama is winning the opening round in the battle over immigration, according to a Bloomberg poll released today, putting Republicans on the defensive with his decision to end the deportations of some illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama's June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

The results underscore the challenge facing Mitt Romney and Republicans as they try to woo Hispanic voters, who are the nation's largest ethnic minority and made up 9 percent of the 2008 electorate, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of exit polls. Obama won the Hispanic vote 67 to 31 percent over Republican John McCain in 2008, according to exit polls.

Let the record show that Barack Obama is a real bum when it comes to immigration. In the two years or so when his party had complete control (as opposed to the partial control it still enjoys) of the federal government, Obama kicked out record number of overwhelmingly Hispanic immigrants. In fact, the president managed to deport his 1 millionth illegal immigrant last September. George W. Bush, try as he might, only managed to push through 1.5 million deportations in eight years. Hope and change, baby, hope and change! Not only has Obama set records for deportations (which among other things has left over 5,000 kids in foster care), but he absolutely insists that his new policy, which would de-emphasize the removal of illegals between the ages of 16 and 30 with a high school degree and no criminal record, is temporary and no big whoop-de-do: "This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship."

In other words, Obama's gesture—and it's little more than that, as it at best covers 800,000 of an estimated 11 million to 12 million illegals—is weaker beer than a case of Natural Light (not to be confused with Natural Rights).

And yet, Mitt Romney—and the GOP more broadly—has no serious counter-offer to make to the 66 percent of Americans (according to new Gallup figures) that view immigration as "a good thing" for the country. During the Republican debates, Romney attacked border-state Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) for continuing the fine tradition of George W. Bush of being vaguely humane toward immigrants. Perry, Romney averred, was threatening the very republic by granting young illegals in-state tuition at Texas universities. Recall Perry's terrifying argument in a debate in Florida (known to be home to more than a few folks originally from elsewhere):

"If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," Perry said.

Romney's jerk-store-level comeback:

"I think if you're opposed to illegal immigration, it doesn't mean you don't have a heart, it means you have a heart and a brain."

Romney is on the record in favor "self-deportations" and a worker-verification program that will doubtless be exactly the sort of nightmare for legal and illegal employees and employers as you can imagine. Apart from all the monumental civil rights issues raised by such a program, just a 1 percent error rate—far lower than is likely—will wreak havoc on day-to-day business decisions. He has "softened" his opposition to the DREAM Act, a pro-immigration bill authored by Republicans and supported by George W. Bush back in the early 2000s, to say that if illegals want to join the military, well, he's OK with that.

If they are interested in winning in the fall—and, more important, minimizing human suffering—Romney and the GOP would rethink their immigration posture. They should take a long look at Ronald Reagan's 1986 legislation that opened up citizenship for 4 million illegals (who were absorbed in the U.S. with basically no problem). And they should remember what Bush said at Ellis Island (worth a trip!) in July 2001:

"Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is a sign of a confident and successful nation. Their arrival should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment, but with openness and courtesy."

On this one issue, they should emulate George W. Bush, who pulled in somewhere between 40 percent and 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Rick Perry, who revealed his inner nimrod during his short run for president, pulled 38 percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2010 governor's race in Texas.

Or they can stick with Mitt Romney's self-deportation plan and write off not just Hispanic voters but all of us who see in people willing to risk it all to come and work and live here not just the past but the future of the American experience.

Muy related: Reason's August/September 2006 special issue, titled, "Immigration Now, Immigration Tomorrow, Immigration Forever," which documents (among other things) the net benefits of legal and illegal immigration.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Holder Contempt Vote May Be Cancelled, Roger Clemens Acquited, IBM's Sequoia Fastest Supercomputer in the World

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Insert witty, insightful comment here.

      1. Fizz!

    1. We have a collective right to protect our collective property! Or whatever the anti-immigration appeal to libertarians is supposed to be. I don’t know.

      1. Abolish the I-9! How’s that for a three-word statement of the libertarian immigration stance?

      2. “We have an existing welfare state, and tons of immigrants will jump on them if they come here.” Because, you know, you couldn’t authorize some kind of immigration status that just allows people to work here.

        1. DERKER JERBS!

      3. There is no anti-immigration appeal to libertarians. Rather, they support free markets in the movement of labor, not government obstacles that produce black markets and encourage crime like smuggling.

  2. I think Mexicans…and it is Mexicans to whom Barry O’s is pandering should have the smarts to thank the president for the gesture and then vote against him anyway! Useless Chicago Ward Heeler fuckhead!

    1. Felipe Calderon says that it’s a great policy for Mexicans.

  3. Mitt Romney as Lucky Day – I can see that.

  4. write off not just Hispanic voters but all of us who see in people willing to risk it all to come and work and live here not just the past but the future of the American experience.

    If you’re saying Mitt Romney is willing to write off libertarians, I think that ship has sailed.

  5. while romney may moderate, the wingnuts at state-level have driven away latinos(and women)thus ensuring the gop will remain white haired white bread.

    1. When President Romney decides via executive order to no longer collect the capital gains tax, I am sure you will be all for it, you totalitarian boot licking little fuck. Since the Republicans tend to win the Presidency a lot more than Democrats, I think you have a lot more to loose by the precedent set by the Obama regime.

      1. how many whites hairs have you then?

        1. So as usual you are too stupid to follow the conversation much less make an intelligent point. Got it.

          1. conversation aint profanity and ur hypothetical aint reality. my point stands that the state-level gop has driven-off latinos and women regardless of what romney does or doesnt do. why do you care anyway being a palinite?

            1. Again, you are both too stupid and too dishonest to admit what a terrible power grab this is. We get it, if obama does it, you will defend it. Now go away and let the adults talk.

              1. that wasnt my point on my first post nor now.

    2. My Team Red state congresstard will be surprised to hear this, seeing as how he’s a rather youthful and VERY dark-haired “latino”.

      As always, thanks for bringing your unique brand of stupid to everyone here at H’n’R, Urine!

      1. so he provides the contrast in the congressional photo on the steps.

  6. Or they can stick with Mitt Romney’s self-deportation plan and write off not just Hispanic voters but all of us who see in people willing to risk it all to come and work and live here not just the past but the future of the American experience.

    Sounds like an admission that the Metro douches find supporting open borders more important than stopping socialism.

    1. What is more appalling is how Reason’s concern over the imperial Presidency has been completely forgotten over this. If the President can refuse to enforce immigration law, then what law can’t the President refuse to enforce? This is an enormous power grab. And Reason loves it because it gives them their pony. Glad to see they have such a principled commitment to the Constitution and the separation of powers.

      1. But supporting this will make them popular with the cool kids like Ezra and Matt.

        1. I sometimes think Gillespie is one good contract offer from MSNBC away from turning into Dave Weigel.

          1. Careful John…..you don’t want to feel the wrath of “The Jacket”!

      2. If the President can refuse to enforce immigration law, then what law can’t the President refuse to enforce?

        How about the WoD laws, and every other unconstitutional law Congress has passed? There’s a whole slew of laws the President is duty-bound to refuse to enforce.

        1. If he said the law was unconstitutional I might have some sympathy. But that is not what he is doing. He is not enforcing it because fuck you that is why. He is detting the precedent that every law is subject to the President and the President can selectively enforce any law the way he sees fit. That is not a rule of law or a Constitutional republic.

        2. Obama is not enforcing the ridiculous DOMA either.

          Meanwhile Romney is not vetting Rubio for VP (ABC NEWS) so he is writing off the Hispanic vote.

          John obviously feels a white only GOP is a road to victory since he is confident of Mitt’s win.

          1. And when someone else comes in and shoves that precedent up your ass, you won’t even be smart enough to understand that you set up your own doom. You are just a nasty totalitarian little fuck shrike.

            1. What law should liberals fear that a Republican President would de-prioritize?

              1. You name them. He could stop enforcing all of the environmental laws. He could tell the IRS to stop collecting taxes. Or stop collecting taxes from favored campaign contributors. If the President can do this, why couldn’t he tell the IRS not to collect taxes from say these five companies and waive all prosecution for tax evasion?

                1. If the President can do this, why couldn’t he tell the IRS not to collect taxes from say these five companies and waive all prosecution for tax evasion?

                  He could do this anyway with his pardon power.

                2. He could stop enforcing all of the environmental laws.

                  Actually they sued (and won) to force the Bush EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act wrt CO2.

              2. It is not just liberals. Everyone should fear this. This is setting the precedent that the President can selectively enforce laws for political advantage.

                1. Or the Executive can set enforcement priorities.

                  *yawn*

                  Like he does every day. As executives do all around the nation every day. The three branches are supposed to “check” and “balance” each other, John. You seem to think that if Congress wills it, the President is obligated to spend all of his resources on that one particular thing. Congress wills and enacts a lot of stuff, all day, every day. The Executive has to choose.

                  1. ou seem to think that if Congress wills it, the President is obligated to spend all of his resources on that one particular thing

                    Yes. Congress could pass a law tomorrow and tell the President that he is only authorized to enforce this or that law. That is basic fiscal law.

                    1. Yes. Congress could pass a law tomorrow and tell the President that he is only authorized to enforce this or that law. That is basic fiscal law.

                      Yes, but they did not. They passed a million laws in world of scarcity. The Executive gets to prioritize.

                  2. Refusing to enforce the law at all is not “setting enforcement priorities”. Also, such priority-setting is usually not done at a massive press conference.

                    1. Refusing to enforce the law at all is not “setting enforcement priorities”.

                      So every single person going 66 MPH in a 65 should be pulled over and ticketed?

                      Also, such priority-setting is usually not done at a massive press conference.

                      Irrelevant.

              3. tax collection? Environmental laws? Work discrimination?

            2. Outside of conterfeiting, I’m having trouble coming up with a federal law I couldn’t stand losing.

              1. Yes, I should have appended my statement with “and why should I care?”

                1. You should care because what will happen is that the law will be enforced against political enemies and waived for friends. The law is still on the books. So Obama is free to deport someone he doesn’t like and let someone he does stay.

                  That is called selective enforcement. And you think it is great because you think you will get your pony. Just fucking sad.

                  1. It’s called Executive Discretion. It is a function when you have too many laws and not enough resources.

                    Feel free to respond to my point that this is no different than “This Office will make generous plea deals with X Class of Offenders if they meet criteria A-E”

                    That is what is being done here.

                    1. He’s not doing this to save resources.

                      Look, it’s clear that he can do this in the sense that no one can stop him. What remains is whether it’s legal or ethical for him to do so. So bringing up all these legitimate enforcement criteria that would be present in other situations has nothing to do with this argument. He’s doing this to buy votes.

                    2. It is legal for him to do this. The results are ethical, whether the intentions are not. So, *shrug*.

                    3. It is legal for him to do this.

                      Article II Section 3

                      He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

                      Yes, yes, 225+ years old and written by old white men but it still means something to me at least.

                  2. And you think it is great because you think you will get your pony.

                    And you think it’s bad because you don’t. Randian has pointed out countless cases of this that apparently don’t bother you at all.

                    1. Countless? This must be a long thread.

                    2. Exactly. John, you want us to be afraid but that dog isn’t hunting. There’s no precedent set here is this is SOP.

      3. What is your position on a police chief ordering his men to stop arresting people for marijuana posession?

        How about a police chief who refuses to obey the city council when it orders the demolition of a property and the eviction of its residents?

        How about a police chief that declines to post police officers at a road where the statutory speed limit is 25% of the speed that the traffic naturally travels at?

        What if a president had stopped enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? Would that have been bad?

        Personally, when the executive stops enforcing a bad law, *I* think it’s wonderful. Especially since it’s not as if this converted us from living in a Republic to Living in a Dictatorship. That ship sailed long ago…

        1. My position on the police chief is that the council has a right to fire his ass over it. He doesn’t get to decide which laws are good and bad, the council does.

          ersonally, when the executive stops enforcing a bad law, *I* think it’s wonderful.

          Then you don’t give a shit about the Constitution or the rule of law or anything other than giving your way. That is your right. But it precludes you then from complaining about the Constitution and the law being ignored. You think immigration laws are bad. Well other people think civil rights laws are bad or other laws. There is no end to it. Basically you are arguing it is okay to shirk your duty and enforce your way via an undemocratic process as long as the right people are in charge. In other words, you are just a top men liberal.

          1. In other words, you are just a top men liberal.

            I would like everyone to read the essay I linked to.

            Then read whqat John just wrote…

            And wonder at yet another instance of John going full retard. 😉

            1. Truth hurts doesn’t it Teran. That is exactly what you are. You think it is okay for people to grab power and ignore the law as long as they are top men and are doing what you agree with. That makes you a top men liberal. You are just not honest enough with yourself to admit it.

              1. But John, setting a precedent doesn’t matter when we like what is done.

              2. You think it is okay for people to grab power and ignore the law as long as they are top men and are doing what you agree with

                John, sweetie, where did I say it was OK to seize power?

            2. It is what he does.

              John, of course, exercised this sort of power every day he was a prosecutor. What level of crime to charge, whether to charge, etc.

              1. That is totally different. You do not as a prosecutor decide to unilaterally stop enforcing an entire area of law. You make those decisions based on evidence not “I don’t like this law”. The two are not analogous.

                Our system depends on having an exectutive that is answerable to the Congress and the Courts and who fairly enforces the laws as written. You don’t like the border laws. Well a lot of people do. And those laws are constitutional and lawfully enacted. The President does not and should not have a right to just ignore any law he chooses.

                1. You do not as a prosecutor decide to unilaterally stop enforcing an entire area of law. You make those decisions based on evidence not “I don’t like this law”. The two are not analogous.

                  Indeed they are analogous.

                  A prosecutor’s office can also make determinations based on limited resources. It is the reason why, absent plea-bargaining, the justice system would quickly grind to a halt.

                  Now, suppose that the President decided that the “plea bargain” for certain types of offenders (let’s say people who have worked here, who did not have the active intent to violate the law, who have good work records, etc.) are low-level, de-prioritized offenders and the “bargain” is that a punishment lower than deportation is imposed.

                  Gosh, that would almost look like…what happened here!

                  1. Thjat is not what is happening here. Obama is saying that for political gain I am no longer enforcing the immigration law. If he can do that, he can do it with tax law or any federal law.

                    1. Thjat is not what is happening here. Obama is saying that for political gain I am no longer enforcing the immigration law. If he can do that, he can do it with tax law or any federal law.

                      You keep saying that without actually addressing the argument.

                      The President is the federal executive. He executes the legislature’s decrees. Because there are millions of laws and scarce resources, the President can prioritize enforcement.

                      It is the same thing as prosecutorial discretion, john. The exact same.

                    2. Because there are millions of laws and scarce resources, the President can prioritize enforcement.

                      Again, he’s not doing this to conserve resources. Are you claiming that it’s impossible for a prosecutor to abuse his discretion?

                    3. Not impossible. I will just repeat myself because you are not bothering to read:

                      Now, suppose that the President decided that the “plea bargain” for certain types of offenders (let’s say people who have worked here, who did not have the active intent to violate the law, who have good work records, etc.) are low-level, de-prioritized offenders and the “bargain” is that a punishment lower than deportation is imposed.

                    4. Ok Randian. So I guess when DAs refuse to prosecute cops, you are just okay with that.

                    5. So I guess when DAs refuse to prosecute cops, you are just okay with that.

                      Certainly not, John! But does that mean that all prosecutorial discretion has to go out the window?

                      Well, no. If you want to continue to throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks, be my guest.

                    6. Who here is saying that the prez has absolutely no discretion in law enforcement. Not John.

                    7. So then the problem must be in how he uses that discretion.

                      I don’t have a problem with how he used it here. Do you?

                    8. How do you not have a problem with how he used it here? Just because you like the immediate result doesn’t mean you must be OK with how it was used, or even OK with the long term consequences.

        2. Except that he’s not refusing to enforce a law that he sees as immoral.

          He’s selectively enforcing a law for political advantage.

          It’s just another flavor of cronyism.

          1. radio entertainment meme

            1. random word string

              1. Fat Rush – King of Redneck AM Radio.

                Does that help?

                1. More random dipshit words strung together.

          2. Except that he’s not refusing to enforce a law that he sees as immoral.

            He’s selectively enforcing a law for political advantage.

            It’s just another flavor of cronyism.

            How do you know?

            And would it make a difference from the “law is the law” POV you are propounding?

            1. How do you know?

              Because he said so. Obama has never said there was any reason for doing this other than political advantage. Indeed, he has deported these people for three years. It is pretty obvious he didn’t have a problem with the law then.

              1. Obama has never said there was any reason for doing this other than political advantage.

                He said “this is for my political advantage”?

                I doubt that highly.

                Indeed, he has deported these people for three years. It is pretty obvious he didn’t have a problem with the law then.

                Indeed. And I drank too much. Until I did not. I believed in God. Until I did not. Behaviors and beliefs change.

                1. I am sure he is wholely committed to this. And the point is it doesn’t matter. He could just deport people he thought were going to give money to his political opponents. And by your logic, he would be a okay for doing so.

                  1. He could just deport people he thought were going to give money to his political opponents. And by your logic, he would be a okay for doing so.

                    Really? Because my logic is telling me “Here is a class of offender. I, as the nation’s top ‘cop’, so to speak, have limited resources. I am going to delineate criteria A-E that say if that if Offender X meets those criteria, I am going to de-prioritize those arrests and pursuits”

                    The validity of the criteria matters very much John.

            2. How do you know?

              By exercising common sense and paying attention to the propaganda being pushed by his stenographers in the legacy media.

              And would it make a difference from the “law is the law” POV you are propounding?

              A principled stand against an unjust law would involve publicly stating that the law was unjust and not enforcing it at all, and then accepting the consequences.

              Ramping up enforcement for years and they selectively changing course for political gain is not a principled opposition to the law.

              1. So you have a problem with his intentions? Fine.

                Please tell me how that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

                1. That is the discussion at hand. God you are obtuse.

                  1. It is a two-part discussion, Professor. Do try to keep up.

      4. Glad to see they have such a principled commitment to the Constitution

        Libertarian website cheers libertarian outcomes. Film at 11.

        1. Libertarians are supposed to be better than that. They are supposed to believe in something beyond just partisan team results.

          1. We believe in liberty. It’s right there in the name. As was mentioned earlier, we would have cheered a president who refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

            1. We believe in liberty. It’s right there in the name. As was mentioned earlier, we would have cheered a president who refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

              Excellent example!

              Yes, John, what if the WWII-era Soldiers refused to detain the Americans in internment camps in California? Good result or bad result?

              1. So when Obama decides that GM and other companies and individuals who support him no longer have to pay taxes because he has ordered the IRS not to pursue cases against them, you are going to be okay with that.

                1. Fugitive Slave Act. Argue it or lose, John.

                  1. Obama isn’t doing this because he has declared the law to be immoral or unconstitutional. He is doing it out of discretion. So the fugitive slave act does not apply here.

                    Face it, you love authority when it is used for good.

                    1. Face it, you love authority when it is used for good.

                      If you just keep repeating yourself, eventually you will be right, I am sure of it!

                  2. Fugitive Slave Act. Argue it or lose, John.

                    The analogy would be a president in the 1850s selectively enforcing the fugitive slave act based on political advantage, not a president that refused to enforce it altogether.

                    Besides the analogy is fundamentally flawed because you are equating unrestricted immigration with slavery which is retarded.

                    1. Besides the analogy is fundamentally flawed because you are equating unrestricted immigration with slavery which is retarded.

                      The Law is the Law, VG. The President cannot selectively enforce the law…so you have been telling me, anyway.

                      The analogy would be a president in the 1850s selectively enforcing the fugitive slave act based on political advantage

                      So something on the order of “if the black person can demonstrate that they have been living and working as a free person for 20 years in the North, with no memory of having been a slave (because they escaped at childhood)”, you would have had a problem with that and said “Back to the plantation with you!”

                2. So when Obama decides that GM and other companies and individuals who support him no longer have to pay taxes because he has ordered the IRS not to pursue cases against them, you are going to be okay with that.

                  That would fail to be equality before the law.

                  How does this de-prioritization fail to uphold equality before the law?

                  Do all people who kill someone go to prison, John?

                  1. Besides, the President already has the power to pardon, anyway. So he could pardon every supporter’s tax evasion charges. He would then be impeached faster than a speeding bullet (well, he’d resign before it got that far).

                  2. Because nothing in the law says these people should get to stay but other get thrown out. We deport people every day. There is nothing in the law that says being here since you were a kid makes you more deserving to stay. Obama just decided that. And could just as easily decide some other way. Once you give the President that kind of descretion, there is nothing to stop him from abusing it.

                    Just admit it, if you like the result, you don’t care about the means or the precedent it sets.

                    1. Joe has you again – the President could just pardon all illegal immigrants tomorrow, could he not?

                    2. He can only pardon them of the “crime”. He can’t grant them legal status. So no, Joe doesn’t have me.

                    3. He can only pardon them of the “crime”. He can’t grant them legal status.

                      When someone is considered to no longer be a criminal in the eyes of the law…that sounds like a change in legal status.

                    4. Until the day after the pardon, when they are breaking the law again.

                    5. Just admit it, if you like the result, you don’t care about the means or the precedent it sets.

                      the funny thing is that they don’t even know what the result will be since it is happening at the whim of the dictator. The actual policies or result could just as easily be appalling to libertarians.

                      They’re really displaying a level of religious devotion to open borders that makes them see Obama’s head fake as some meaningful advancement of freedom instead of the power grab that it obviously is.

                    6. They’re really displaying a level of religious devotion to open borders that makes them see Obama’s head fake as some meaningful advancement of freedom instead of the power grab that it obviously is.

                      It is always a good idea when people are legitimately disagreeing with you, and in good faith, to talk over their heads as if they were animals and you were on a nature show.

                      “See how the Wild Libertarian fails to appreciate the consequences of his belief system”

                      Fuck you.

                    7. It is always a good idea when people are legitimately disagreeing with you, and in good faith, to talk over their heads as if they were animals and you were on a nature show.

                      Judging by your behavior towards me on that other thread, you actually believe this is true.

                      And you’re not arguing in good faith. You’re putting words in John’s mouth; he never said “the law is the law”, he’s arguing that it’s ridiculous to excuse Obama’s actions on the basis of moral opposition or saving resources.

                    8. he never said “the law is the law”

                      Yes, Tulpa, John is arguing pretty much exactly that. Read what he wrote again.

                      Judging by your behavior towards me on that other thread, you actually believe this is true.

                      You were not disagreeing in good faith, Tulpa. You kept ignoring the words right in front of your face to prove “implied” “bias” for your beloved Mitt Romney.

                    9. They’re really displaying a level of religious devotion to open borders that makes them see Obama’s head fake as some meaningful advancement of freedom instead of the power grab that it obviously is.

                      Obama does nothing but power grabs. And no, I don’t see this as a meaningful advance in liberty. I just don’t get outraged when he orders his minions to not kidnap some of the people that the Congress has directed him to. I’d rather save my energy for stuff that actually matters, like the GM bankrupcy, his attempts to expand the public payroll, his reappointment of a inflationist to the Federal Reserve, his support and signing of the unconstitutional Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the unconstituional way in which Obamacare made it through the legislature.

                      I see many reasons to go to the barricades against Obama. This is not an important one. If congress would impeach him over it, and John is right this would be grounds for impeachment, I would be cheering it. I just am not going to get outraged about this instance: an instance where he reduced the damage his administration does – regardless of the fact that his intentions were stupid, and regardless of the fact that it is one of a long train of abuses and dictatorial actions by one of the most unilateral and unlawful administrations that the U.S. has suffered under.

                  3. Do all people who kill someone go to prison, John?

                    Some killings are legal and some killers are never found.

                    If the remaining killers’ fate depends on their age and whether they went to college, then that would certainly fail to be equality before the law.

                    1. If the remaining killers’ fate depends on their age

                      So no more juvenile justice system then?

                    2. And you call me a pedant.

                      …the remaining ADULT killers’ fate depends on their age…

                      BO’s declaration does not apply to minors.

                3. This Fugitive Slave Act thing is causing you some real cognitive dissonance, isn’t it.

                  1. Not at all Joe. If Obama has said he foudn this law to be unconstitutional and stopped deporting everyone, then the FSA might apply. But even then that assumes immigration law is as bad as slavery, which it is not. So the only cognitive dissonance is on your part.

                    1. If Obama has said he foudn this law to be unconstitutional and stopped deporting everyone, then the FSA might apply.

                      So if in 1850 a President said “No more FSA enforcement”, but he did it for nakedly political reasons, you would say that this means dictatorship and the President is a tyrant?

                4. Yes, the government collecting fewer taxes is a plus.

              2. The president didn’t have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — it just forced free states to allow slave hunters to operate within their borders.

                But keep mangling history in the service of your agenda.

                1. The president didn’t have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — it just forced free states to allow slave hunters to operate within their borders.

                  Professor Pedant is a Pedant. Tulpa, does the particular example matter or is it the principle that it is designed to illustrate matter more?

                  You’re kind of wrong on the history, by the way (unless you think Dred Scott just waltzed his happy ass back into slavery), but that is beside the point, which you are well aware.

                  1. LOL. So you offer the most inflammatory example possible and then claim the example doesn’t matter.

                    BTW, Dred Scott was emancipated after the (in)famous ruling. Keep trying.

                    1. BTW, Dred Scott was emancipated after the (in)famous ruling. Keep trying.

                      He had to be ‘purchased’ and ‘set’ free. It took a few months.

                      So you offer the most inflammatory example possible and then claim the example doesn’t matter.

                      For the principle it serves to illustrate, it does not really matter. And I am avoiding it because you’re going to offer some competing bio of Dred Scott that says he was basically free until the Blows or Chaffees or who the hell ever set him free and we’re going to get bogged down in all that.

                      So cut the shit and argue the point, Pedant.

                    2. Actually, you need to show that it was the President’s men who forced Scott back into slavery. We’re talking about whether the President had the choice of whether to enforce FSA.

                    3. *yawn* big surprise.

                      Fine, Tulpa, switch to Japanese internment, then. Argue the principle.

                    4. That was an executive order. Keep going.

                    5. F you. You forfeited the right to an argument over the principle when you chose the two most inflammatory examples possible, trying to put John and I in a bad spot. And now that it’s shown that those examples were poorly chosen, you want a mulligan. F you.

                    6. Actually, you need to show that it was the President’s men who forced Scott back into slavery.

                      Would he have gone back but-for the implied enforcement of law?

                      “The government didn’t force me to go to jail! I just listened to what the judge said all on my own!”

                    7. Dude, if you knew history as much as you purport to, you would know that it wasn’t federal agents enforcing the FSA. It was bounty hunters.

                    8. I wonder what Judge Taney was all exercised about, then. I mean, hey, shit, the Supreme Court didn’t need to get involved…there was *apparently* no government action!

                    9. THIS is “moving the goalposts”. Those of you who spuriously accuse me of that rhetorical crime, take note.

                      We were talking about whether the FSA would have been unenforced if President Buchanan simply chose not to enforce it. And now you’re talking about SCOTUS, which a law student should know is not the same thing as the President.

                    10. And the court case was, of course, initiated by Dred Scott himself, hoping to get a declaration of freedom. It wasn’t the US govt trying to force him back into slavery.

          2. Concern John is Concerned.

        2. The Droner In Chief getting another 4 years is not a libertarian outcome.

      5. This. A million times.

        We’re slouching toward Kos, folks. And yet you lash out at the one person who can save you.

        1. What Magical Jesus is this? Is it you, Tulpa? That’s adorable.

          1. It is you who say it.

            1. bwa ha ha. Delusions of grandeur really do fit you.

              1. If they fit me, they’re not delusions.

    2. Are you implying that Romney will stop socialism? I have yet to see the evidence.

      1. I’m not voting for the A-Hole. But saying that O maybe isn’t so bad because of this policy (whatever it actually winds up being) is idiotic.

        1. RTFA.

          Let the record show that Barack Obama is a real bum when it comes to immigration…Obama kicked out record number (sic) of overwhelmingly Hispanic immigrants….Obama [has] set records for deportations (which among other things has left over 5,000 kids in foster care)…Obama’s gesture…is weaker beer than a case of Natural Light (not to be confused with Natural Rights).

          Where do you think Gillespie said Obama wasn’t so bad?

    3. Sounds like an admission that the Metro douches find supporting open borders more important than stopping socialism

      That’s hardly the worst priority to make given the massive economic gains to be had from open borders.

      Lots of xenophobe butthurt ITT. You lost get over it. We are not going to indulge your irrational fears of furriners.

  7. Mitt could make this issue go away with a nice, simplistic, campaign-style motto:

    “High fences, wide gates.”

    Oh, and Constitutional government, rather than government by Presidential diktat.

    1. Abolish the I-9!
      It’s a violation of our 14th Amendment economic rights.

  8. Bush’s “confident and successful” immigrants brought us 9/11. Diversity kills. It is time for an immigration moratorium for at least 40 years.

    1. Bush’s “confident and successful” immigrants brought us 9/11. Diversity kills. It is time for an immigration moratorium for at least 40 years.

      Great, intellectual hemophilia as the cure for religious hapsburg lip.

    2. Shouldn’t you be yelling at those kids to get off your lawn, or throwing rocks at a Taco Bell?

      I would rather have every Mexican here than idiots like you.

    3. RETARD ALERT

    4. They also brought us Intel, Google, and many other recent IT and similar improvements to our lives. The US sure would have been better off if we hadn’t had Andy Grove, Sergei Brin, and similar evil immigrants…

  9. Bush’s “confident and successful” immigrants brought us 9/11.

    Funny, I thought most of those guys got in during the Clinton administration.

    1. As far as numbers of foot-soldiers go and counting discrete incidents of terrorism, the most active and numerous terrorist groups in the U.S., the Earth Firsters and similar “eco-terrorists”, are primarily composed of natural born U.S. citizens.

      Shall we outlaw births as well?

      1. Interesting point. Domestic eco-terrorists don’t get the attention they deserve.

      2. Your probabilities are backwards. What is at issue is the probability that a potential immigrant is a terrorist vs. the probability that a natural born citizen is a terrorist. You’re comparing the probability that a terrorist is natural born vs. the probability that a terrorist is an immigrant.

  10. George W. Bush, try as he might, only managed to push through 1.5 million deportations in eight years.

    Except W. wasn’t trying at all; he was doing the bare minimum he could get away with. When the Republicans lost Congress, the White House announced that at least they could work with the Democrats on “comprehensive immigration reform,” since the Republicans were so xenophobic. W. and Ted Kennedy were likethis on open borders.

  11. In any event, the US has been made so crappy by the past two moron presidents that Mexicans are returning to Mexico. This despite the massive violence that the US’ asinine drug laws foster.

    “Patriots” needs to get their heads out of their asses. The only thing special about America is freedom, and as that gets destroyed, so does the country.

    1. We had a plenty free country for years without an open border. Freedom does not have to mean open borders.

      1. Freedom meant open borders prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

        1. So what? That just means you can have a free country with or without open borders.

          1. No, it means you are wrong about building the country. When one’s initial observation is wrong, then one should not double down

      2. I don’t know what “open borders” means to you. I think we should allow all non-criminals / virulent in if they want to work. (Or if they have establish means of support).

        1. “non-criminals / non-virulent”

        2. Good for you. But we had a plenty free country for years and we didn’t do that. They are our borders we can open and close them as we like.

          1. You honestly do not see how restricting immigration affects people’s rights? Currently there are million of (legal) immigrants waiting years, if not decades for their family members to come to the country.

            Freedom includes freedom of movement. Both in and out. If that’s restricted, so is freedom.

            1. Freedom means the freedom to have a country and have borders. Mexicans don’t have the right to move here under the Constitution. To deny the country the right to enforce its borders is to deny its right to exist.

              1. Freedom means the freedom to have a country and have borders.

                This statement reminds me that John Locke thought that freedom included the freedom to use one’s Negro slaves as one saw fit.

              2. Where did I argue against a country being able to control its border? Right above I stated the US should keep out criminals and the currently infectious.

                The same results happen here as every other place where non-rights infringing activities are outlawed. The activity happens anyway, only with a great deal more crime, because a black market has been created.

                1. So you would favor deporting a person who committed armed robbery in Oaxaca 30 years ago who snuck across the border?

                  How do you square that with your open borders interpretation of libertarianism? You guys claim that it’s fundamentally unjust to prevent people from moving around and finding work wherever they want.

                  1. You guys claim that it’s fundamentally unjust to prevent people from moving around and finding work wherever they want.

                    The dumbness of this made me choke.

                    1. It is a dumb position… but one you seem to support.

              3. Freedom means the freedom to have a country and have borders.

                So your definition of “freedom” is essentially collectivist. Good to know.

            2. Minarchist libertarianism doesn’t apply to activities happening outside the domain of the force initiator. Immigration happens partially outside, so it is not properly a subject of freedom.

              1. Immigration happens partially outside

                Did you laugh when you typed that?

      3. Is John a Navaho or Cherokee? ‘Cause I’d be willing to bet his people came here from somewhere else and did it without “papers.”

        1. They were nations just like ours. And they took that land from someone else. It is how the world works. What do you think the Indians just sprang from the ground?

      4. Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

        Oh, and E Pluribus Unum.

      5. Freedom does not have to mean open borders.

        OW OW aw that stupid hurts bad.

        When I can’t hire people from foreign countries without going through Kafka’s world, it’s not a free country.

        1. Then this country was not a free country in the 1920s. And that is just self evidently not true.

          1. Then this country was not a free country in the 1920s. And that is just self evidently not true.

            One word: Prohibition.

    2. Conservatives keep saying America is exceptional because Gawd favors us.

      (that is one phrase that proves wingnuttery)

      1. We are not special. The existence of demonic little turds like you proves it. If there is a God, he certainly hates America or people like you wouldn’t live here.

        1. Liberals say America is special because of government, and shrike is one of them saying that.

          Barry Goldwater would not approve.

        2. You are an angry little man

          …or angry big man. Not here to judge, but, jesus, they need you at Red State

          1. Oh, I doubt they’d want shrike there, timb. We sure as fuck don’t.

      2. Can you name any other place where there are nutcases as exceptional as you ?

  12. I count at least 3 trolls in this thread (o3, shriek and “Chris Mallory” and they all got hits from commenters other than sevo.Tsk tsk.

    1. explain how noting that gop state actions have driven-off latinos and women is trolling. show ur work please

  13. the 66 percent of Americans (according to new Gallup figures) that view immigration as “a good thing” for the country.

    I bet a majority of Americans think that sex is a good thing too. That doesn’t support a policy of legalizing sex with minors.

    1. That’s your analogy to not deporting military veterans based upon their immigration status?

      Why do you hate the troops, Tupla?

    2. Letting foreign people = sex with minors

      But it’s the open borders folk who are nuts.

      1. It’s called an analogy, Cyto. There are loads of SAT prep books on Amazon you can get real cheap.

  14. Some of the reflexive Sean hannity types on this board should really ask themselves how an Executive determining priorities of enforcement is “government by Executive diktat.”

    The sort of people who think every speeder should be pulled over and every broken taillight ticketed have no idea what prioritize means. Or, they just hate Obama….or, they just hate undocumented immigrants….

    Maybe all three

    1. If Barry were doing this for altruistic reasons, it would be one thing… Hispandering, however, is not altruistic when it’s done just to get re-elected.

      1. Besides… we hate “executive diktat” no matter which Team is in charge.

        But you knew that, right?

        1. I thought libertarians hated executive diktat. But apparently not so much.

          1. Libertarians do hate executive diktat. Which leads to only one conclusion.

            1. Tulpa fails to respond to this:

              The sort of people who think every speeder should be pulled over and every broken taillight ticketed have no idea what prioritize means.

              I wonder why?

              1. Now that you’re done moving the goalposts (control F to find where I blew the whistle on that one) you switch to ad homs.

              2. The sort of people who think every speeder should be pulled over and every broken taillight ticketed have no idea what prioritize means.

                Or maybe it means that they believe laws that can’t be effectively enforced shouldn’t be passed in the first place. I’m in favor of huge numbers of speeding and taillight tickets precisely because the strict enforcement of those laws would require more resources and have fewer exceptions than people want, forcing us to choose between increasing funding for enforcement and repealing/amending laws.

                The problem with the kind of prioritization opposed by John and Tulpa isn’t that it makes use of scarce resources effectively, but that it creates a system with two effective bodies of law which can be ignored or enacted at the will of a unitary executive which in turn promotes over-legislation and semi-dictatorial rule. If you value the rule of law, it doesn’t mean you like the laws at hand; it means you believe that having a single, enforceable standard applicable to everyone is preferable to the alternatives.

                Prioritization can still occur without wide executive discretion, and it will have to be carried out by legislators and taxpayers rather than a widely-immune executive.

      2. FIFY – please explain what politican doesnt act in the interests of their electorate?

  15. Looks like them boys are having a grand ole time. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Browser.tk

  16. Why do you idiots feel the need to feed the trolls?

    1. Randian can be irritating but I wouldn’t call him a troll.

      1. He ain’t talkin’ about me, Professor Pedant.

        1. Like I said, ignore the troll.

        2. In principle, he was. If it can be said that Warty has a principle.

        3. This is as good a spot as any to post this:

          A Google UserOct 15, 2011
          You really need to re-think the process of adding people to the troll list. MNG and I are now on it and neither of us fits the profile of a troll. Also I was able to increment my ignore-count (assuming that’s what the number next to the name is on the list) by just unignoring and ignoring over and over again. Well, unless several other people happened to be ignoring me at the same time, which I think unlikely. That’s just asking for abuse from a dishonorable user who has a grudge against someone.

          –Tulpa

          1. That incident was brought up here as well and rectified. That is indeed a weakness of crowd-sourcing, especially with a relatively small crowd.

  17. It’s not in Romney’s interest to talk about much of anything but the economy, and it’s in nobody but Obama’s interest to change the subject from the economy to anything else. That is our national quagmire, and Romney would be a dope to help Obama move it anywhere else including your just concerns, Nick.

    Obama getting 31 percent of the Hispanic vote in the last election is a personal best he will not exceed given the four years of erosion on his halo, and how horrible McCain was as a candidate (and human being) compared to almost anyone else.

    1. I mean 67 percent. Added to the reasons I mentioned above, we’re whiter than we were in ’08 in the demographic tables (yay! Go Honky Beaners!).

      1. except that in key swing states, hispanics can swing the election.

  18. Article II Section 3

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

  19. Superb rant factually underscoring the moral bankruptcy of both major parties and their clownish (desperately unfunny and destructive)leaders.

  20. Randian|6.19.12 @ 11:20AM|#

    Fugitive Slave Act. Argue it or lose, John.

    Randian|6.19.12 @ 11:51AM|#
    Randian|6.19.12 @ 11:43AM|#

    The president didn’t have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — it just forced free states to allow slave hunters to operate within their borders.

    Professor Pedant is a Pedant. Tulpa, does the particular example matter or is it the principle that it is designed to illustrate matter more?

    Randian|6.19.12 @ 11:55AM|#

    *yawn* big surprise.

    Fine, Tulpa, switch to Japanese internment, then. Argue the principle.

    This must be some new definition of “arguing in good faith” that I’m not familiar with.

    1. I will say it again for the slow: you should have argued the principle. You wanted to argue the particulars. Should I distill the argument for you, or would that be a waste of time?

  21. Put me down as one of those who thinks the structural damage that Obama is doing to our system of government outweighs any libertarian outcomes that may be a side effect of that damage.

    Sorry, but a President who can decree a law that you like into effect after it has failed to pass Congress can decree a law that you don’t like.

    And do you really think, in the long run, that more laws are going to be imposed by the President that you like?

    1. It is almost like there is some kind of law or something? What is it “you today, me tomorrow”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.