Immigration

Obama Waterboards the Definition of Amnesty in Immigration Speech

|

Let's not impugn each other's motives! Especially since Republicans are evil! ||| Whitehouse.gov
Whitehouse.gov

In his immigration speech last night, President Barack Obama said "We need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears." If only we had a president who could meet this pressing need.

Consider this passage, on the emotionally loaded word "amnesty":

I know some of the critics of the action call it amnesty. Well, it's not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today. Millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. That's the real amnesty, leaving this broken system the way it is.

Supple as it may be, the English language does not permit us to address the discomfort of certain words by changing their plain meaning. Most definitions of "amnesty" run something like this: "the act of releasing or protecting a person or persons from prosecution for wrongdoings." Obama's proposal last night was to release a large category of persons from punishment for breaking U.S. law, if they agree to meet certain conditions. So by a fair reading of the word's dictionary definition, this is a conditional amnesty, or even a temporary conditional amnesty, given that President Ted Cruz will likely reverse it. But an amnesty nonetheless.

What is definitely not amnesty is what Obama said it was: the status quo, in which the class of people under discussion live under a permanent, destabilizing threat of deportation. Yes, some of them don't pay their income taxes, but, believe it or not, many (and possibly most) do. Many also pay into Social Security without much hope of ever receiving anything back, providing a little bonus surplus to our sagging welfare state. And of course, where applicable, illegal immigrants pay sales and property taxes as well.

The most significant way that illegal immigrants aren't "playing by the rules," is the fact that they live here without government permission. Is that de facto amnesty? No: They have not benefited from a "releasing or protecting" from punishment; they're just on a lucky streak, but still liable to be ejected from the country at any time. At least until Obama's temporary conditional amnesty kicks in.

My fellow supporters of vastly increased legal immigration to this country do not, I believe, further their cause by retreating into soft-focus euphemism (DREAMers!) or sidestepping uncomfortable language just because it has proven politicially effective for people on the other side of the issue.

If you recognized the existence of more than 10 million unpermitted residents in this country as the product more of prohibition than of criminality, and acted upon that insight foremostly by expanding and deregulating legal immigration, then I predict the word "amnesty" would start to lose some of its negative potency. People really resent line-jumpers when the queue stretches back as far as the eye can see; speed up that process and our national debate would look a lot more reasoned and thoughtful.

NEXT: Who Smithsonian Magazine thinks is "significant"

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. President Ted Cruz campaign song lyrics:

    Keep movin’, movin’, movin’,
    Though they’re disapprovin’,
    Keep them doggies movin’ Rawhide!
    Don’t try to understand ’em,
    Just rope and throw and brand’ em,
    Soon we’ll be living high and wide.
    Boy my heart’s calculatin’
    My true love will be waitin’, be waiting at the end of my ride.

    Move ’em on, head ’em up,
    Head ’em up, move ’em out,
    Move ’em on, head ’em out Rawhide!
    Set ’em out, ride ’em in
    Ride ’em in, let ’em out,
    Cut ’em out, ride ’em in Rawhide.

    1. PB you are completely fucked in the head.

      1. Weigel is seriously mentally ill, and admitted that he has to take constant medication because of it.

        His unstable behavior is what led him to be outed from the JournoList by one of their own members, and eventually to get fired from the Washington Post.

        He’s such a vile cretin that even many of the people who agree with him politically can’t stand him.

        1. I only do illegal drugs. I don’t do prescription drugs.

          Just lucky that way.

  2. “vastly increased legal immigration”

    What, exactly, is the case for this? Is America a stagnant cul-de-sac, bereft of new blood and new ideas? Are we in any danger of becoming Tokugawa Japan?

    Do you think importing millions of Central American peasants makes enacting libertarian policies IN AMERICA more or less likely? If less likely, then why do you support “vastly increased” immigration?

    1. Great for them, good for us, acknowledges the reality of human behavior rather than the fantasies of central planners, diminishes the supply of “illegals,” decreases social tension, injects youth and entrepreneurship. For starters.

      1. Yes. I recall the 80s when supply-sider and Reagan guru George Gilder was singing the praises of immigrants because they brought capital, a work ethos, and innovation to the USA.

        Without immigration over the last 50 years, I would estimate that U.S. real living standards would be at least 40% lower.

        George Gilder.

        How times have changed.

        1. Your brain is truly broken.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|11.21.14 @ 11:03AM|#
              “So I made that up?”

              Tell us how O-care isn’t going to affect the election again! I love that story.
              Oh and does 8% ring a bell?

            2. You’re selectively quoting a creationist. What does that have to do with anything? At all?

          1. Well he does keep it in a pretty shitty place,,,

          2. He’s got a point here.

        2. Immigration over that period was immensely lower than it is now.

          1. No it wasn’t.

        3. You must have glossed over the part where Matt said, “the fantasies of central planners.”

          1. Gilder is a central planner supporter?

      2. So a bunch of nice ideas and full access to our Welfare State.

        1. We must sacrifice freedom to preserve the welfare state! Protect the hive!

        2. Although a smaller Welfare State then if there weren’t so immigrants.

        3. Have any progressives considered the effect of increased immigration upon US greenhouse gas emissions?

          Progressives seriously argue that US emissions need to be cut 80% by 2050.

          Obama has decreed that US emissions will be 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time, He has decreed that US immigration policy must accommodate very substantial increases in population.

          Progressives and conservatives agreed that US infrastructure is decaying and under stress. Additional population will create more stress. But infrastructure requires a lot of cement and a lot of energy, and both inevitably give rise to CO2 emissions.

          I really don’t see how the progressive project could possibly succeed. Instead, I think it leads to a leveling of the US with, say, Mexico.

          1. If he actually said they need to be decreased below 2005 levels, he needs better science advisers, since emissions have been reduced to like 1992 levels.

      3. If you actually care about people how can you not be for increased immigration? Yes we need to fix the welfare state, yes we need them to assimilate. I just can’t condemn somebody for yearning to be free.

        1. If you actually care about people how can you not be for… wealth redistribution, government healthcare, free shit…

          1. Um…because that shit decreases liberty?

            LIBERTarian…get it?

          2. Those things involve violating rights. A guy crossing a border and finding a job does not violate anyone else’s rights.

        2. Once we’ve turned America into Guatemala, where will people “yearn to be free” to?

          1. Since that’s never going to happen at least due to immigration it’s not up for consideration.

      4. I’m with Milton Friedman on this.
        You can have open borders or you can have the welfare state, but you cannot have both.
        http://openborders.info/friedm…..are-state/

        1. This is one area where old Milt had the wrong hypothesis.

          It’s not Open Borders or Welfare State. Welfare states are unstable and are doomed to collapse – regardless of whether the borders are open or not.

          The correct statement would have been “You cannot have a welfare state.”

          1. I see your point, but wouldn’t open borders speed the collapse?

            1. Not necessarily. It’s not Irish Americans that are swarming at the public trough, and I see no reason to think today’s immigrants will be much different.

              1. That has not been the experience in much of California – although the government caused drought / farm disaster there hasn’t helped.

            2. Sure, but that’s not our problem is it?

              Citizens having more babies also speeds the collapse – yet we rarely say things like “you can have free reproduction or a welfare state but not both”… 😉

              1. Citizens having more babies also speeds the collapse – yet we rarely say things like “you can have free reproduction or a welfare state but not both”… 😉

                I have known of several women who were basically forced to take birth control or be sterilized because they were on welfare and kept popping out kids that they couldn’t take care of. So while that may not be said, it happens to be policy.

                1. BULLSHIT. You are lying. I am calling you a liar. No woman in America is forced to take birth control or be sterilized to receive welfare.

                  You are a liar.

                  1. You are a liar.

                    All I know is what they told me.

                2. I have known of several women who were basically forced strongly encouraged to take birth control or be sterilized

                  Better?

            3. I believe that was Friedman’s point.

            4. I see your point, but wouldn’t open borders speed the collapse?

              You say that like it’s a bad thing.

              1. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

                The devil you know…

          2. The welfare state is a waystation on the road to serfdom.

            You can’t have free immigration and a welfare state. You can’t have free reproduction and a welfare state. You can’t have freedom and a welfare state forever.

            Sure, if a state can exploit an enormous reserve of a precious natural resource, then it can have a welfare state for a while. Norway and Saudi Arabia are examples. Such a state can even appear to be free. Norway is an example.

            Or, it is possible that a enormous quantity of capital has been accumulated within the borders of a state. In this case, the state can plunder the capital accumulation and sustain a welfare state until the capital is depleted. Sweden is in this category. The UK and US welfare states have been supported by a mixture of resource exploitation and capital plunder.

            Eventually, these welfare states will fail. Open immigration will hasten that day.

        2. This. I cannot reconcile this no-borders, ultra-easy citizenship position coming from people who so vehemently argue for low taxes, private property rights and against the welfare state.

          Real world example — ever had an illegal Mexican without insurance sideswipe your car and almost kill you, only to drive off once you stop? I have.

          1. If he were legal and could buy insurance, that would solve the problem. Furthermore, a citizen without insurance could do the same thing.

            1. He could have bought insurance by all kinds of means — such as through the legal owner of the car, for but one example. The point is that if you are ballsy enough to come here illegally and flaunt the law, and engage in hit and runs, you probably aren’t going to be a law abiding citizen anyway if you magically become legal.

          2. How did you know it was an illegal Mexican that hit you? Just asking.

            1. I believe legal Mexicans are required to wear an edible guacamole-sombrero so they are easy to spot.

              1. That’s a great way to make friends.

            2. Cops pulled up immediately after accident and chased him.

              1. Fair enough. I still don’t think that example, while an awful situation to be sure, can be turned into much of a general point.

                1. So you think showing examples of people who come here illegally and cause great mischief cannot be turned into a general point that such people may not make good citizens if we give them amnesty and an easy citizenship path?

                  1. I don’t think it’s much of a basis for a generalization, no.

                    1. At least you live up to your reputation as being dense and obtuse.

                    2. At least you live up to your reputation as being dense and obtuse.

                      Not in this case; If I applied your principle, Mr Duke, to people immigrating to my town from North Caroline, I could generalize that North Carolinans tended to be violent home invaders.

                      Given that we live in a nation where the laws are such that all of us commit on average 3 felonies a day, not to mention regularly flouting motor vehicle laws like speed limits, your generalization about the sort of character people must have to violate laws against benign acts like moving, getting a job is pretty weak tea.

                    3. First of all, people moving inside the country are not immigrants, so your analogy is inapt on its face.

                      Second, suggesting that “since we all commit crimes daily” ’cause they’re so many dumb laws” is weak tea indeed. In the case of illegal immigration, we aren’t simply talking about breaking the speed limit or the occasional fender bender. There has been a huge push among blue states to ensure illegals get all the same goodies all of us citizens have to earn or pay for — free schooling, healthcare, etc. And to reward said people who willfully break the law with new legal status they did not earn is insanely stupid.

                    4. First of all, people moving inside the country are not immigrants, so your analogy is inapt on its face.

                      What’s the difference between someone moving into my town from San Diego and his brother moving into my town from Tijuana, Mr Duke?

                      From my perspective they look like pretty much exactly the same act!

                      In the case of illegal immigration, we aren’t simply talking about breaking the speed limit or the occasional fender bender.

                      True, breaking the speed limit can on occasion endanger people’s lives in a way that renting an apartment in another town cannot. And fender benders are even more dangerous… and damage property!

                      If you think those things are minor violations of the law, then someone moving to another town should be even less concerning to you!

                      I do appreciate you bringing up examples that support my case, BTW. Very collegial of you.

                      And to reward said people who willfully break the law with new legal status they did not earn is insanely stupid.

                      Why? If it is so blindingly obvious, why don’t you craft a rational argument as to why that is instead of simply arguing by assertion.

              2. Cops pulled up immediately after accident and chased him.

                So, one of the criminals that is to be deported?

          3. Had them sue my wife for an accident she didn’t cause – because the driver had no insurance.

          4. Because a native can’t do the same thing?

          5. I had a white guy sideswipe my car and he was uninsured. Fortunately, I have insurance so I was fine.

            1. So you were fine with paying your own deductible? I wasn’t fine with that when I had to pay mine.

          6. What a great reason to punish everyone else. Are there any other ways you’d like to use your misfortune to violate my individual rights?

      5. and acted upon that insight foremostly by expanding and deregulating legal immigration…

        Ok, Matt. What requirements would you have to obtain legal citizenship in the US? These are the hard questions you must answer if you’re going to go the platitude route.

        1. immigration != citizenship

          1. ? What would deregulated immigration look like in libertopia? If you can walk across the border, you’re now a citizen?

            1. Well, in the 1790’s that’s exactly how it worked.

              It was a terrible time too – hordes of ruddy Germans overrunning America causing Ben Franklin to fret about them dominating elections.

            2. ? What would deregulated immigration look like in libertopia? If you can walk across the border, you’re now a citizen?

              Maybe we should ask the Navajos and the Seminoles. I think they have some experience with deregulated immigration.

              1. Immigrants brought Native Americans a much-needed injection of entrepreneurship! 🙂

                1. They did. The natives have much better living conditions today than they did then.

          2. A thousand times this. I want people to be able to move around more freely, not necessarily to have a freer pathway to U.S. citizenship. (Though being legal will definitionally make it easier than being illegal.)

            1. Ok, that’s fair enough Matt. Coming here to work is one thing, as long as that person is held accountable to all of the same laws I am. But they should not be allowed to collect any govt benefits or govt healthcare (EMTALA would be a big one here) until they become a citizen. And citizenship should not be handed out lightly considering the welfare state mess we are currently in.

              1. So your bitch is about the welfare state, not immigration. Fight the right battle.

                1. ? “Immigration is the movement of persons into a country to which they are not native in order to settle there, especially as permanent residents or future citizens.”

                  I do have a problem with making that easy. I don’t have a problem with relatively easy temporary work permits. What the hell are you talking about?

                  1. Who said anything about making citizenship easy? And so what if it is?

                    Immigration, like everything else under the sun, is based on supply and demand. If there are jobs/opportunity people will come to fill them. If there aren’t, they won’t. And all parties benefit when jobs are filled. Econ 101.

                    If you distort that market with free shit (welfare), you create a drain on the economy as the government is incentivised to steal more money to support itself.

                    Fight the right fight. The battle is not with immigration. The battle is with the welfare state.

                    1. Fight the right fight. The battle is not with immigration. The battle is with the welfare state.

                      I’m sorry but you are very wrong. We live in a constitutional republic where people can vote on their representation. There is so much more at stake than just supply, demand and jobs when you talk about instantly adding millions of new voters to the roles.

                      Even if you did away with the welfare state, your new voters may not share the same values regarding life, liberty and property that you do.

                      This entire issue is much more complex than anyone at Reason is giving credit. Are all immigrants the same? Would you rather have 1 million Somali immigrants or 2 million Japanese immigrants? These are realistic questions to be answered even though they will hurt many people’s feelings.

                      Immigration is but one of many battles we are fighting in order to preserve a free republic.

                    2. Would you rather have 1 million Somali immigrants or 2 million Japanese immigrants? These are realistic questions to be answered even though they will hurt many people’s feelings.

                      Your preferences (and xenophobia) =/= the government’s prerogative. Thanks for outing yourself as a social engineer btw.

                      Immigration is but one of many battles we are fighting in order to preserve a free republic.

                      True that. Can’t have a free nation without open borders.

                    3. when you talk about instantly adding millions of new voters

                      You said instantly. I didn’t. You can’t unfuck this situation over night. Citizenship could take many years to achieve.

                      Even if you did away with the welfare state, your new voters may not share the same values regarding life, liberty and property that you do.

                      Then they wouldn’t come here, would they? As it is liberty that creates the opportunity.

                      Would you rather have 1 million Somali immigrants or 2 million Japanese immigrants?

                      Depends on the types of jobs the market needs to fill. Somalis aren’t going to fill physician positions and the Japanese aren’t going to come here to be ditch diggers.

                      ———————-

                      Question for ya Duke…

                      Europe has open borders. Are the Italians and the Greeks swamping Germany? Hell, for that matter, are the Germans rushing to Greece to take advantage of their liberal welfare state?

              2. Er, no one should be allowed to collect govt benefits or govt healthcare.

              3. Yeah, right … as if more than, say, 2% of immigrants from Central America could pay ObamaCare premiums without a subsidy.

                The median age of an undocumented worker is 36. Let’s assume two of these have one child, and qualify for Obama’s amnesty. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation ObamaCare calculator, their premium would be $8,137 per year if they live in Texas.

                FFC that the typical Central American immigrant could pay that without a subsidy.

            2. That sure worked out well for South Africa. What do you think happens when you accrue a large population of labor without political rights? Are libertarians now shilling for apartheid?

              1. “Are libertarians now shilling for apartheid?”

                “English language does not permit us to address the discomfort of certain words by changing their plain meaning.”

                1. I agree entirely. Now, are you going to address the actual results that have historically occurred when your dumb-as-fuck policies have actually been implimented, or are you planning to retreat into a line of esoteric bullshit from some economist whose theories have never, ever produced the predicted results when actually implemented in the real world?

                  1. What do you think happens when you accrue a large population of labor without political rights?

                    *Gasp* THEY END APARTHEID. THE HORROR. I can totally see why you’re shitting your pants.

    2. Do you think importing millions of Central American peasants makes enacting libertarian policies IN AMERICA more or less likely?

      \

      Free movement of people *is* a libertarian policy. I don’t know about you, but I am ready to start living in a free country again.

    3. Do you think importing millions of Central American peasants makes enacting libertarian policies IN AMERICA more or less likely?

      Well, for one, open borders *is* a libertarian policy. Free movement of people and all that, in addition to reducing the need for citizens, employees and employers alike, to have to submit to ID checks, I-9s when starting employment, etc.

      But aside from that, if you mean all other policies, then evidence suggests it’s a wash or even makes it MORE likely with regards to the welfare state. Any supposed effect of “those people don’t vote like us” is negated by the all the nationalists who are willing to vote for the welfare state to go to “people like us” but turn against when it’s going to recent immigrants. Homogeneous populations tend to have larger welfare states.

    4. “Do you think importing millions of Central American peasants makes enacting libertarian policies IN AMERICA more or less likely? ”

      Catching this, Restoras?

    5. Because libertarians respect property rights and so we don’t believe anyone has the right to tell someone else where they are allowed to live and work. Particularly not for arbitrary reasons such as, “you were born on the other side of this line on a map.”

      1. Or, “you or your children may one day vote in a way I don’t like. Or someone else who looks like you may vote that way.”

    6. If people come here to make a better life through their own labor and skills, we all win.

      Politically, people who emigrate from communist, socialist, or fascist countries are far more likely to be open to libertarian ideas than your average third generation welfare recipient or overeducated middle class scion.

  3. OT:
    Has anyone heard of the band Half Japanese? Driving home last week I heard this song on the college station and had a hard time keeping my speed in check.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2seOLrxAi0E

    1. Half Japanese has been around forever. Early eighties, I think. They’re a strange, art-rock mess (not in a bad way). This sounds very Jesus Lizard-esque.

      1. Great band. Early eighties, with a 20+ year career. The band has had many musicians from drone/noise/art rock groups. And yes, this tune is very Jesus Lizard-esque. Needless to say, Half Japanese influenced Scratch Acid, Jesus Lizard, Butthole Surfers, and most of the bands that appeared on Shimmy Disc, Touch N Go, Amphetamine Reptile, etc.

        1. 1975 according to wikipedia. 1977 for first released recordings.

  4. Big business gets their cheap labor and the Dems get the potential voters. Truly a win for both Team Red and Blue.

    1. Is legal immigrant labor as cheap as illegal immigrant labor? I’ve always thought that illegal status was part of the wage calculus that allows employers to offer less than the otherwise prevailing rate. Admittedly, I have no information to substantiate that impression.

    2. It’s better for “big business” to get their “cheap labor” in the US than to move their operations abroad.

      Protectionism doesn’t work, neither for goods nor for labor.

  5. One of my father’s favorite lines revised for currency: “When Nixon Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth, he’s lying from both sides of his mouth.”

  6. How many fingers am I holding up, Welch?

  7. ” Yes, some of them don’t pay their income taxes, but, believe it or not, many (and possibly most) do. Many also pay into Social Security…”

    How exactly, does one pay income taxes or SS taxes without a SS number? How would their employers even file the paperwork for tax withholding without a SS number?

    ” The most significant way that illegal immigrants aren’t “playing by the rules,is the fact that they live here without government permission.”

    I disagree, I think the real issue is the competitive advantage that comes from working outside of our massive tax and regulatory state.

    1. How exactly, does one pay income taxes or SS taxes without a SS number? How would their employers even file the paperwork for tax withholding without a SS number?

      Fake social security numbers. You might as well be asking how are they having jobs in the first place, given the need for I-9s.

      1. Or they could just be working for cash off the books. Which would seem much simpler and profitable.

        1. They could be. Then again, so can US citizen contractors. It does happen, which is why Obamacare had the 1099 provision in it. Then it was deemed basically unworkable.

          1. US citizens can, but the punishments are much worse. If an illegal immihrant is caught working off the books, he may be deported. Which is the same result as if he is caught working with a fake SS number and paying taxes, so no real consequences. If I were caught working for cash under the table, I would be subject to heavy fines and possible jail time.

            1. To be fair, there is often a good reason immigrants choose to leave their home countries.

            2. But that’s exactly the reason fake social security numbers are used instead of everything under the table– because of the employers. Employers get in much more trouble if they employ people without paying taxes than if they employ someone who faked their number, for some very good reasons.

              The biggest leverage is always with the employers, who are smaller in number and easier to threaten, which is why immigrant restrictionists always end up talking about finding ways to stop it there. (But that’s true of all regulations, that go against sellers instead of buyers, etc.)

              1. Working for cash off the books is *not* “no real consequences” for the employer. Not at all. So while employers may be willing to employ someone they suspect of using a fake number, many at least want that legal shield.

                Now, if you want to say that people working for cash are never caught, well then they aren’t caught if they’re US citizens or permanent residents either. From the employer perspective there’s little difference.

        2. Are you proposing a massive crackdown on US citizen independent contractors (and teenagers doing babysitting, etc.)? Many of them do employ immigrants, but the ones willing to pay immigrants for cash off the books are also willing to take cash for a discount from customers even when only US citizens and permanent residents are involved in their company.

          How much of an increase in the regulatory state aimed at small business do you want in order to catch illegal immigrants (and US national contractor tax cheats)?

          1. I have never proposed any such crackdown, nor do I support any expansion of the regulatory state. I merely claimed that Matt’s claim which I cited above was incorrect.

            1. There’s a reason why Matt said “many (and possibly most).” Many employers insist on it, because of the harsh possible penalties, which are the same regardless of who they are employing.

              The workers may be more willing, and thus may be somewhat more likely to work for cash, but there’s enough of an incentive for the employer than many (and possibly most) do indeed use fake Social Security numbers.

              His claim is perfectly correct, and uncontested by all sides of the debate. Anti-immigration groups like the CIS even use this claim as a reason to oppose immigration (just as much as pro-immigration people use it as a reason to support.)

              1. The incorrect claim I was referring to was the second quote in my first post. The question I had about paying taxes was just that, a question. I asked the question because it didn’t match with my (somewhat dated) experience. I worked in construction for several years and I saw lots of people who got paid in cash every week. Back then at least, contractors and sub-contractors were much more worried about getting a visit from OSHA(Who are truly vile human beings if you’ve never dealt with them) than they were about getting raided by INS.

        3. Or they could just be working for cash off the books. Which would seem much simpler and profitable.

          Ah, yes, but that makes the employer liable. Most employers realize that going to jail isn’t good for their bottom line.

          1. Especially because the IRS has repeatedly held in cases that the company is liable even if the owner didn’t know anything about it, and it was all the fault of the accountant/supervisor/HR person/hiring manager, etc. If the taxes aren’t paid, the IRS wants its blood.

    2. Both amnesty supporters and opponents agree that there’s lots of people who use fake Social Security numbers.

      You can also get a non-Social Security Taxpayer ID number.

      The IRS doesn’t share information with USCIS, because the IRS wants the money.

      I disagree, I think the real issue is the competitive advantage that comes from working outside of our massive tax and regulatory state.

      In some cases, but there’s a ton of US citizen independent contractors who do the same thing and take cash under the table. Did you support the big 1099 crackdown in Obamacare?

    3. As answered, fake SS numbers. Also (follow the links in the post), since 1996, millions have applied for & received tax ID numbers, which allow them to pay income taxes.

      Good point about evading regulatory state.

      1. ” (follow the links in the post)”

        Damn Matt, I already RTFA and now you want me to RTFLINKS too? It’s Friday for Christ’s sake.

  8. “If you recognized the existence of more than 10 million unpermitted residents in this country as the product more of prohibition than of criminality”

    Hmmm, Prohibiton vs criminality? That seems kind of a fuzzy distinction to me.

    So if one violates a law that prohibits that person from doing something that’s not a “real” crime?

    There are laws prohibiting individuals from driving a car without a valid drivers license. Does that mean a person who does so has not committed an actual crime and should not be cited for it if pulled over by a cop?

    1. So you want those dope heads in CO and WA to be arrested by Feds pronto?

      1. What I want is to get pre-emptive amnesty for any law that I don’t like and don’t personally want to obey either – like paying federal income taxes.

        After all there is no empirical distinction that proves vioalating law A is not “really” a crime and violating law B is one.

        1. So no problem with the cop who ticketed the lady for obstructed plates while she was in a funeral procession? The law is the law, after all

          1. As long as I have to pay federal income taxes, she can get the ticket.

            The law is indeed the law.

            There isn’t any law that isn’t one iota less legitimtately enforcable than another.

            Don’t like a law? Get it repealed. There are thousands (if not millions) of bad laws that should indeed be repealed.

            But no one else in the country has more legitimate standing to be excused from any law they don’t want to obey -regardless of what it is – than I do from any law that I don’t want to obey regardless of what that law is.

            1. After all there is no empirical distinction that proves vioalating [sic] law A is not “really” a crime and violating law B is one.

              Hows abouts we all agree that for something to be a crime, there needs to be a victim?

              1. Who is the victim if I refuse to pay FICA taxes for Social Security and Medicare?

                1. The guy covering your shortfall.

                  1. Well FDA, its not like the feds are gonna go to somebody and say “Gilbert didn’t pay his FICA tax this month, so we’re taking an extra $500 out of your check. I guess if you really wanted to, you could make the case that either the money will be borrowed(in which case the victim would be future taxpayers) or created out of thin air(in which case the victim is anyone who owns dollars). But the amount of actual damage done by any one person is so small, it would ne like arresting someone for stealing your skin cells when you shook hands.

                    1. So stealing small things isn’t a violation of the NAP?

                    2. I would say for a violation of the NAP to occur the damage must at least meet some threshold of actual, noticeable harm. Think of it this way. If I drive my truck past your house you can easily make the case that I have damaged you and your property. The air you breath will have slightly more toxic chemicals in it. Your clothes and everything else in and around your house will be slightly dirty. Would that be a crime? If so, would farting in a crowded room be?

                    3. Stealing a candy bar is still measurable and I can prove harm, no matter how slight (i.e. you stole $1.18 from me).

                      Not sure you can prove harm with the truck or quantify it. Perhaps some day they will…and I that day we need to kill all the lawyers.

                  2. What “shortfall” would that be?

                    Those programs are economically nothing more than forced Ponzi schemes that steal money from some people and give it to other people.

                    The victim’s are those who are forced to participate and pay into it against their will.

                    I would be far better off if I had privately invested all the social security taxes taken from in an stock index fund. I could retire earlier with a higher benefit and I would have a property right to that wealth rather than be subject to the whims of politicians fiddling with the benefit formula – which is already stacked against upper income earners relative to those with lower incomes.

                    1. You want to talk taxation now?

                      I can’t make taxation moral. It will always violate the NAP as it is taken by force. But I can make it equitable, by making it a purchase of government services.

                      Everyone pays an equal dollar amount for the package of services.

                      I don’t argue the current system is fair, equitable or moral. But if someone else is paying the bill for the services you receive, there is a victim.

                    2. “You want to talk taxation now?”

                      You started it by stating we should all agree there has to be a victim for something to be a crime.People having their money stolen to pay for goods and services being provided to someone else are victims. Those on the receiving end are not “victims” if they don’t get their handout because someone refused to pay. They had no right to receive someone else’s property to begin with.

                      “Ican’t make taxation moral. It will always violate the NAP as it is taken by force. But I can make it equitable, by making it a purchase of government services”

                      Except most of the taxes collected AREN’T used for actual government services being provided to the payor – they are transfer payments to someone else. That is what 100% of FICA taxes are used for.

                      “Everyone pays an equal dollar amount for the package of services”

                      Even that would not be exactly equitable since not everyone would receive exactly the same amount of services.

                      And my overall point remains – those breaking immigration laws are not one iota more deserving of amnesty in any way than I am deserving of it for not obeying the laws I don’t like – such as paying FICA taxes.

                    3. And I still contend that making an action criminal when there is no victim is immoral. We have laws that are immoral.

                      But as I state below, if you don’t have the funds to bring all the bad guys to “justice”, do you want the sheriff to put the murderer away or the kid who broke the speed limit?

                    4. “And I still contend that making an action criminal when there is no victim is immoral. We have laws that are immoral”

                      Yeah?

                      Well tax laws that steal private property from some to give to others are every bit as immoral if not more so than laws prohibiting some people from moving into the country.

                      The latter are no more deserving of amnesty from prosecution for disobedience than the former.

                    5. Well tax laws that steal private property from some to give to others are every bit as immoral if not more so than laws prohibiting some people from moving into the country.

                      Yep. You’re an anarchist, then I take it?

                    6. “You’re an anarchist, then I take it?”

                      Exactly where I advocate for the entire abolition of goverment?

                      Quit trying to change the subject.

                      You have yet to prove that there is any valid reason why immigration laws should get to go the head of line for non-enforcment status compared to any of the other long list of other “immoral” laws.

                    7. Exactly where I advocate for the entire abolition of goverment [sic]?

                      Well, you claim that all tax is theft. If you want a government, you need to fund it. Funding it involves obtaining funds, forcibly, through taxation. My assumption is that you want no government. Or I suppose you might be okay with theft. Or you’ve found a way to fund government voluntarily (which I’d love to hear about).

                      Quit trying to change the subject.

                      You have yet to prove that there is any valid reason why immigration laws should get to go the head of line for non-enforcment [sic] status compared to any of the other long list of other “immoral” laws.

                      I never said immigration laws shouldn’t be enforced.

                      I said there shouldn’t be immigration laws to begin with, as it is a victimless crime and victimless crimes are immoral.

                      Below, I claim that in the absence of enough funding to fully comply with the law, the executive can decide priorities for enforcement.

    2. My contention is that when you have 10 million-plus “illegals” of any definition, you are likely making a prohibition of a behavior that humans are just gonna do (like drink alcohol or smoke marijuana, say). Doesn’t mean that all crime fits under the definition; in fact, most doesn’t.

      1. Black markets have negative consequences, but they always have politically-connected beneficiaries as well.

      2. We can also get rid of those “illegal drug mules with calves the size of cantaloupes” by ending the drug war. Why not do both at the same time? Drug policy reform and immigration reform.

      3. The question is whether you’re willing to flush the separation of powers just because Obama’s doing something we like.

        If that’s what we’re doing, then we’re all Palin’s Buttplug, Matt. Insisting on liberty–regardless of whether we agree with the executive–is an important part of what makes us libertarian.

        1. Right, which is why I have criticized this action, and have said stuff on TV like this: twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/535614613715701761

          1. I’m sure.

            I’ve been saying it a lot, too.

            We’re going to have to say it a lot more.

            People aren’t going to understand us unless we say it almost every time we talk about it.

            Obama has made it so we can’t say we’re in favor of open borders without implying to an awful lot of people that we’re also in favor of Obama’s unconstitutional power grab.

            If you think Obama’s overreach in attacking Libya was unconstitutional, this makes that look like nothing. I actually supported what he did in Libya–if he’d put it up to a vote! Unfortunately, I couldn’t voice my support for that action at all without also announcing that I was against it because it was unconstitutional.

            …not if I wanted people to understand me.

        2. The question is whether you’re willing to flush the separation of powers just because Obama’s doing something we like.

          I have contemplated this quite extensively, as I hate motherfuckers who sacrifice their principles for issues they happen to like, and I certainly don’t want to be one of them.

          What is an executive order? An executive order is the chief executive telling those that fall under the executive branch how to do their job. It is not law. Violations of EOs cannot result in prison, only the loss of job. I think we can all agree that “the boss” has the discretion to tell his folks HOW to do their job.

          So, Congress writes a law that says deport illegals, but provides a fraction of the funding required to execute that order. Wouldn’t you agree that the executive needs to prioritize the limited funds and focus on deporting the worst illegals? Because that’s what he’s doing. He’s telling his coppers to get the bad illegals before the nice illegals. And I have a hard time arguing that that’s a bad thing.

          I don’t see where this violates any law or where he has created any law. I think, in this particular instance, the issue is simply Republicans making hay.

          Yes, it kills me to side with dear leader, but that’s where reason leads me. Where does my logic fail? (And I really want you to prove me wrong.)

          1. Where does your logic fail?

            Separation of powers.

            You should have slid down and read my post here, first:

            https://reason.com/blog/2014/11…..nt_4918093

            1. That tells me nothing Ken.

              Which power is he grabbing, specifically? He’s prioritizing which to enforce with the limited funding provided.

              1. Did I not list it?

                Did I not give you a link?

                Among the enumerated powers of Congress:

                “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”

                Does the President declare war?

                No.

                He doesn’t establish the rules of naturalization either.

                1. He’s not naturalizing anyone. He’s prioritizing which ones to deport. Nothing more.

                  1. Isn’t he exempting people from repatriation based on his own criteria?

          2. If all he were doing was proritizing one group of law breakers over another, you may be right. But he’s also issuing legal status and documents to people who don’t qualify for them under the current law.

            1. But he’s also issuing legal status and documents to people who don’t qualify for them under the current law.

              That’s a better argument. But I would argue he’s not giving the legal status. He’s giving them a slip of paper to show the coppers that they are below the cut-off line on the priority list.

              I suppose it can be argued that that is “legal status”, but it’s not nearly as cut and dried as Ken and the Republicans suggest.

              1. Isn’t he exempting people from repatriation based on his own criteria?

                1. I suppose. But when given a fraction of the money required to do the full job, shouldn’t one prioritize to produce the best benefit? I’m all for getting rid of the bad illegals first.

                  And it’s not law. The next guy can do as he sees fit with “his” limited funding. This happens all the time in military acquisition. The military makes the requirements, Congress funds a portion of those requirements and then the military decides what it can live without.

                  Don’t get me wrong, shitbag has violated the Constitution several times (impeachable), I just don’t think this is one of them.

                  1. “But when given a fraction of the money required to do the full job, shouldn’t one prioritize to produce the best benefit?”

                    It’s not enough that Obama is confiscating enumerated powers from Congress, you want to give the President the power of the purse strings, too?

                    One of the ways legislatures assert themselves is by refusing to fund things. That goes back to the colonial legislatures before the American Revolution.

                    That power of the legislature goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.

                    For the love of God, what aren’t you willing to give up to support immigration?

                    1. WHOA, WHOA, WHOA there Mr man.

                      a. You have yet to identify which powers he’s taken.

                      b. I NEVER said ANYTHING about giving the executive the powers of the purse.

                      Are you reading what my posts say or are you reading what you think my posts say. I suggest you go to the top and start over.

                      One of the ways legislatures assert themselves is by refusing to fund things.

                      No shit. So what are you arguing? That Congress underfunded deportation of illegals but expects the executive to do the entire job without spending any money?

                      Ken, the job cannot get done with the money available. Do you support deporting families over criminals? There is no power grab here (that I can see). If there is, point it out and make an argument.

                    2. “So what are you arguing? That Congress underfunded deportation of illegals but expects the executive to do the entire job without spending any money?”

                      Are you or aren’t you arguing that Congress’ underfunding deportation somehow justifies Obama confiscating Congress’ enumerated power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”?

                      Underfunding [insert whatever] is a legitimate function of legitimate legislatures going all the way back to 1215 and the Magna Carta.

                      Why are you talking about underfunding in the same breath with amnesty if you’re not using it as a justification for amnesty?

                    3. And please don’t tell me that amnesty doesn’t have anything to do with naturalization!

                    4. Are you or aren’t you arguing that Congress’ underfunding deportation somehow justifies Obama confiscating Congress’ enumerated power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”?

                      As I’ve pointed out, repeatedly, he isn’t naturalizing anyone. He is prioritizing which laws to enforce because he doesn’t have enough money to enforce the law as written. There is no power grab. He’s saying you guys are at the bottom of the list and I’m not going to waste my resources coming after you when I can spend it on illegals who are committing more egregious crimes.

                      And it’s NOT amnesty. No law is passed. The next president can come along and completely reverse it if he so chooses. I don’t see an overstep here.

                      ——————-

                      Out of curiosity, how do you feel about not enforcing Federal MJ laws in CO and WA? Overstep?

                    5. “As I’ve pointed out, repeatedly, he isn’t naturalizing anyone. He is prioritizing…”

                      There’s an old saying in commercial real estate that you know your marketing is working when your customers start repeating it back to you.

                      I think you’ve heard Obama’s bullshit so many times that it’s driven you insane. Are you some kind of objectivist? Looks to me like you’re playing Obama-lama word games. It’s not naturalizing; it’s prioritizing?!

                      Everyone else is calling it what it is–it’s amnesty. And it’s all about circumventing the “rules of naturalization”–no matter what you want to call it.

                      “Out of curiosity, how do you feel about not enforcing Federal MJ laws in CO and WA? Overstep?”

                      I feel like stretching the commerce clause to include things the federal government has no business being involved in–within a state (rather than among the states)–isn’t an enumerated power of Congress at all.

                    6. Everyone else is calling it what it is–it’s amnesty.

                      I think “everyone else” hates Obama so much that they are letting is affect there ability reason and they are reading shit into what isn’t there. It isn’t amnesty.

                      ___________

                      NOW, that said, I just heard on the radio that the provision allows family members of the “protected illegals” to apply for work visas, where they couldn’t before. That MAY be a violation of the law DEPENDING on how the law reads. IF it says relatives of illegals can’t apply for work visas, then it is. IF the law grants authority to decide who gets to apply for work visas to the executive, it isn’t.

                    7. Oh for goodness’ sake!

                      am?nes?ty
                      noun \?am-n?-st?\

                      : a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amnesty

                    8. priority

                      When we get more money we’ll come after you because we have more important things to do with what we’ve got.

                    9. Oh, yeah…

                      For goodness’ sake!

  9. The word “amnesty” isn’t the only thing he waterboarded. Obama also waterboarded the Constitution.

    “The Congress shall have power…

    To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    —-Article 1, Section 8

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..f_Congress

    They’re called enumerated powers–they define the powers of Congress.

    This isn’t one of those war powers, where the President’s capacity as Commander-in-Chief may or may not overlap with Congress’ power to declare war.

    1. Why didn’t the House vote on the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that passed with 68 votes last year?

      1. Do you imagine the separation of powers, which are fundamental to the Constitution, somehow all disappear if the House of Representatives doesn’t do something the President wants them to do?

        You really are a partisan hack.

        1. Did I say that?

          The Senate passed a bill. Why did the House ignore it?

          1. “Why didn’t the House vote on the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that passed with 68 votes last year?”

            Excuse me. I must have thought there was a purpose behind this statement.

            If you didn’t mean to imply that Obama’s unconstitutional action was somehow justified because of the House’s inaction, then what the fuck did you mean?

            1. Notice, he still hasn’t responded to this question:

              “If you didn’t mean to imply that Obama’s unconstitutional action was somehow justified because of the House’s inaction, then what the fuck did you mean?”

              He’s saying the same thing below, too. In a lot of ways, he’s dumber than Tony. You get the idea Tony actually believes the stupid shit he says. Shrike doesn’t even take himself seriously.

              1. Because I don’t really care if people come into the USA but I also don’t care if we prevent them before they do.

                1. And what does that have to do with Article 1, Section 8?

                  1. The correct answer is “nothing”.

                    You were trying to justify Obama’s unconstitutional power grab by citing the House’s inaction, and when you got called on it, you tried to pretend like that isn’t what you were doing.

                    …like a jerkoff.

                2. Palin’s Buttplug|11.21.14 @ 11:44AM|#
                  “Because…”

                  No, it’s because you’re a lying POS.

          2. Because it sucked harder than your mom.

          3. Basic economics. The House has other bills they prefered to work on with their scarce time.

            1. Ha! The House didn’t pass jack shit that became law.

      2. Why didn’t the House vote on the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that passed with 68 votes last year?

        Probably for the same exact reason that your lying scumbag hero pretended not to be an emperor for the first six years of his presidency, then immediately declared himself emperor the day he became a lame duck.

        Because this is another shit sandwich that most of America doesn’t want.

        1. Also, who the fuck cares what their reason was?

          There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that places one house of Congress above the other, and neither house is obligated to vote on legislation just because the other house did.

          The only thing they are SUPPOSED to be constitutionally obligated to do is the annual budget. Other than that, they don’t have to vote on jack shit if they don’t want to.

          Harry Reid has bottled up plenty of bills that the House passed, but of course those items aren’t a part of your agenda, are they now?

          1. Exactly.

            Obama vetoed the Constitution because he disagreed with Congress.

            That isn’t the way it works.

            Elections have consequences, Mr. President, and that means House and Senate elections, too.

    2. “The word “amnesty” isn’t the only thing he waterboarded. Obama also waterboarded the Constitution”

      Obama’s version of the Constitution was written on an Etch A Sketch.

    3. The Constitution is dead.

      It wasn’t this President. It was Hubris killed the Law.

      1. King Kong reference? Racist!

      2. The Constitution is not dead.

        Not so long as I’m alive to shame anyone that advocates violating the principles of liberty found within it.

        So long as the principles of liberty are alive, the parts of the Constitution that reflect them will never die.

        1. The constitution allows for the violation of a person’s right to property without due process protected by the constitution. The constitution is, in fact, dead.

          1. Just because people are presently violating it, doesn’t mean it’s dead.

            We’ve seen worse.

            Ever heard of the Dred Scott decision?

            At one point, the executive rounded up American citizens by the thousands–men, women, and children–stripped them of their property, and locked them in concentrations camps, just because they were of Japanese ancestry.

            The Constitution has survived all sorts of violations and bounced back, at least the parts that are supported by the principles of liberty.

            There were some parts of the Constitution that were anti-liberty–and, thanks to the principles of liberty,–a lot of them died.

            1. The Korematsu decision has never been overturned.

              It is still quite constitutional for the “executive to round up American citizens by the thousands–men, women, and children–to strip them of their property, and to lock them in concentrations camps, just because” of their ancestry to protect the nation from spies.

              It’s unlikely, but quite constitutional according to the USSC.

              1. The Bush Administration at its worst during the War on Terror didn’t round up Muslims or Arabs that way.

                I don’t think that was out of the warmness of Darth Cheney’s heart. I think that’s something they figured they couldn’t justify constitutionally.

                If that’s something the executive doesn’t think he can get away with, constitutionally, even in the wake of an anthrax attack, then I think maybe that’s a good example of the Constitution bouncing back.

                No doubt, anyway, it’s two steps forward and, sometimes, one step (or more) back. Still, I wouldn’t give up on the separation of powers, yet. Just because someone got away with murder last week doesn’t mean the rule of law is over.

                Even if Obama gets away with it this time, we’ll see what happens next. He’s got that climate treaty he wants to push through without Senate approval, as well. He announced he was going to do that before the midterms, even.

                Let’s see how well he does with that.

  10. “My fellow supporters of vastly increased legal immigration to this country do not, I believe, further their cause by retreating into soft-focus euphemism (DREAMers!) or sidestepping uncomfortable language just because it has proven politicially effective for people on the other side of the issue.”

    Like “medical marijuana”?

  11. The big problem is that the opposition party (supposedly the GOP) does NOTHING about welfare and border security while they are in power (1981-1993 and 2001-09).

    One of you brave Peanuts should show some fortitude and acknowledge this fact.

    1. Nobody is this stupid. Nobody.

      1. Your beloved GOP voter is. The GOP campaigns on decreasing the welfare state and border security then promptly do the opposite when they gain power.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|11.21.14 @ 11:36AM|#
          “Your beloved GOP voter is”

          Gruber and the Ds, turd.

      2. Higher up, he’s trying to make like he doesn’t think Congress’ inaction justifies Obama’s power grab.

        Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to argue–on principle–that the separation of powers only matters if Congress agrees with the President?

        He’s so stupid, it’s hard to understand what he’s saying; rather, it’s hard to believe someone would be so stupid as to argue that with a straight face.

    2. Turd:
      “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!”

      1. Still a winning argument. The GOP is a statist welfare party to the core.

        They just act differently when there is a Democratic POTUS.

        1. Because we’re all just secret Republicans.

          Look out behind you demfag, there’s a roving band of Christians out for secularist blood.

        2. Palin’s Buttplug|11.21.14 @ 11:43AM|#
          “Still a winning argument.”

          The argument with those voices in you heard, turd.

    3. That’s because there really isn’t an opposition party. There’s only the bleeding heart liberals and the efficiency experts for the bleeding heart liberals.

  12. “We need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.”

    You know, I bet that when he talks like that his supporters think he’s being all nice and outreach-y. They don’t notice the passive-aggression, the implied demonization of opponents, and the moral presumption of saying you’re for hope and the other guys are for fear.

    1. Wouldn’t you characterize the rhetoric of most politicians this way?

    2. They fail to notice that Obama never debates and never compromises. No attempt is ever made to persuade the opposition – they are only shamed and insulted. He never wrote a piece of legislation in his career, and had no interest in taking part in the law-making process.

      Truly the worst politician to ever hold high office in this country.

    3. There’s a reason for this (and I recognize it because it is my ex-wife’s go to method for dealing with defeats):

      People with the cluster of disorders that include narcissistic personality disorder thrive on emotional chaos. In the case of NPD, the disordered person attempts to control and dominate people around them, and a very succesful strategy is to rile them up and push them into a state where they are reacting emotionally rather than in a sober and measured way.

      To do this, the NPD sufferer creates artificial crises. Often he or she expresses reasonable ideas in a manner designed to offend or outrage, and if confronted will use the reasonableness of what they are proposing as a way of further demeaning the people he or she is trying to unbalance.

      This entire immigration policy battle is an example of that. He could simply ask Congress to tackle the matter. Instead Obama offensively demands action while pissing off the people whom he is trying to dominate so that they will be unable to come to the consensus that is needed for them to act.

      There is no change in urgency or severity in the problem; it is just as much a problem today as it was two months ago. He is trying to unbalance Congress so that he can dominate it – because he lost their respect after the mid term election losses.

      1. I am not even sure he wants it to be solved, as opposed to wanting a campaign issue. He sabotaged the 2007 immigration reform, after all.

      2. Pretty good hypothesis – but I find it hard to imagine him actually dominating anything or anyone. Sabotaging and subverting – yes.

  13. the English language OldSpeak does not permit us to address the discomfort of certain words by changing their plain meaning.

    That is why Big Brother Obama uses NewSpeak.

  14. OT: I am listening to my contractor and his assistant discussing the Earth’s magnetic field and its relationship to the Bermuda Triangle and MH370. It makes the part of me built when I was getting my MS in Earth Science unhappy.

    1. Tell them it’s about to flip and they should be stockpiling magnets.

    2. Ask if they know how magnets work.

    3. Another side effect of having contractors here: everything has been moved around, so my 12-month-old daughter is just looking around and saying “uh-oh!” over and over again.

  15. “We need a debate”. Which I had…with myself…and decided…I was right. So there.

  16. To be fair, that word was asking for it.

    1. If it had nothing to hide, he wouldn’t have to torture it.

  17. One of my best friends is a Canadian chiro who has had to go through insane bureaucratic procedures to work here in the USA and is a major contributor to the economy, law abiding, pays taxes etc and not surprisingly amnesty pisses her off. She’s never been approached with it, and she came here legally, etc

    Not all Canadians are libs

    Ime, rural Canadians from NW canada are pretty simpatico with libertarian concerns

    I love me some rural Canadians

    They all have shotguns too I might add

    She looks at the libs in Vancouver and Seattle (who recently elected a socialist (who got Seattle to pass a 15 dollar minimum wage and who was arrested a few days ago) with disdain

      1. She is hawt!!!!!!

        Swoon!

      2. Eh, Wildrose as a ‘libertarian group’ petered the fuck out last Alberta election. They did what UKIP is starting to do, focused more on populism than any kind of principles. I like Smith but her party is filled with jackasses.

  18. What is the limiting principle to this “vastly increased legal immigration”? Does every one of the seven billions non-Americans on the planet have access to taxpayer funded housing, healthcare and education?

  19. So by a fair reading of the word’s dictionary definition

    Stop right there! Words mean whatever I FEEL they mean!

  20. Obama, you da real mvp.

  21. The problem isn’t what Obama did, it’s what he didn’t do. Given the limited resources for deportations, it’s reasonable to prioritize. But presenting that as “acting on immigration” is ridiculous. Large parts of the immigration system are dysfunctional not because of laws but because the executive branch is poorly managed. Instead of doing his job and improving the situation, Obama is merely using this issue for political gain.

    What Obama should have done is quietly prioritize cases without making a political case out of it, and then fixing the f*cking DHS.

  22. the English language does not permit us to address the discomfort of certain words by changing their plain meaning

    Seriously? The leftist/statist constantly alter the meaning of words, noy just because of “discomfort” but to completely alter the focus of an argument.
    Oblamo using the trite “what we have now is amnesty” is nothing more than to try to take the wind out of the sails of those who, rightly, proclaim that allowing those, who have entered illegally, to stay, is, in fact, amnesty, since the lawful consequence of having entered, thusly, is to be removed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.