Immigration

Obama's Cynical Games May Doom Immigration Reform

If he loses, he'll only have himself to blame.

|

Oral arguments recently in United States vs. Texas, the lawsuit challenging President Obama's controversial DAPA

Hispanics Love America
Ray_from_LA / Foter.com / CC BY

(Deferred Action Against Parents of Americans) immigration executive order, made one thing distressingly clear: The eight Supreme Court justices are deeply divided along ideological lines just like the rest of the country. This is bad news for the president because if there is an even split among the justices, the lower court's injunction against implementing his order will stand.

But the administration has only itself to blame for this sorry state of affairs—not partisanship on the bench. The truth is, despite strong legal arguments, it has badly mishandled the case from start to finish.

Here's how the order works: It hands deportation relief for three years to some four to five million undocumented immigrants—about half of the illegal population—who were either brought to the country as minors or are parents of American children and don't have a criminal record. These folks can obtain an official note from immigration authorities that they qualify for "deferred deportation status." This designation, well within the purview of the presidency, makes them eligible for work authorization and driver's licenses. What it doesn't do is give them permanent legal status or green cards—in other words, amnesty. This means that should future presidents choose—or Congress ordain—they could be thrown out in a jiffy. It is a temporary, time-limited reprieve that many presidents, not just Obama, have handed to whole classes of undocumented immigrants.

But Donald G. Verrilli, the president's solicitor general who argued the case before the Supreme Court, made a complete hash of this argument. At one point Verrilli's brief notes that once implemented, the individuals covered by DAPA will be "lawfully present" in the United States. However, a page later, it says, "aliens with deferred action are present in violation of the law." The contradiction prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to muse how those covered by the order can be "lawfully present, and, yet, they're present in violation of the law."

This discrepancy is not such big deal, notes Margaret Stock, a conservative immigration attorney who he is running for Senate as an independent in Alaska. And if the justices were immigration law experts, they would be able to sort through the seeming contradiction. "But they are not," Stock, a member of the Federalist Society, maintains.

So it was up to Verrilli to put the administration's best foot forward and stick to the language of "deferred deportation" and avoid the phrase "lawful presence" (although, to be fair, this semantic misstep can be traced back to the order itself). Instead, he tied himself in knots—and wasted precious time when he could have been hitting other points.

But this was not Verrilli's only blunder. One of the key issues that will determine the outcome in this case is whether the 26 states that have sued the administration actually have the standing to do so. The states claim that they do because the driver's licenses they will have to issue will cost them money. Verrilli, however, maintains that they don't have the standing because the order doesn't require them to issue these licenses or subsidize them, their own state laws do—which they can change to avoid "injury." But this isn't that simple.

As Justices Roberts and Alito pointed out, the administration would sue states on equal protection grounds should they deny licenses to the undocumented, especially if, as the administration was claiming, they are now "lawfully present" in the country. "That's a real Catch­-22," commented Roberts.

What Verrilli should have pointed out is that the whole injury argument is bogus. Why? Because driver's licenses for DAPA recipients would actually save the government money, which is one reason why the federal 2005 REAL ID Act gives states the green light to issue them and also stipulates the criteria the licenses will have to meet to be federally recognized for identification purposes. Indeed, if the government has decided to tolerate the presence of undocumented workers, then it makes no sense to deny them the ability to drive and work—because that would force them to either continue to work illegally (defeating the whole point of giving them temporary legal status) or look for alms from the government. The alternative, locking them up, would be far more expensive for the states and the feds. "It costs Texas a lot less to allow them to have driver licenses—even subsidized ones—than not allow them," insists Stock.

But Verrilli is not alone in failing to understand his own case. After all, the president, a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer, has been sowing confusion even longer.

Indeed, prior to announcing DAPA in November 2014, Obama had said not once, not twice, but 22 times that he did not have the legal authority to offer mass deportation relief without Congressional authorization. "I am president. I am not king," he pleaded. And yet he did a 180-degree flip.

He may be right this time, but it is understandable that people are having trouble buying it. Why did he get things so wrong originally? Verrilli told the skeptical conservative justices that the president was speaking then without obtaining formal guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. In other words, he didn't know what he was talking about.

But that's the charitable take. The truth is the president was playing politics. He didn't want to do anything before the 2014 midterm elections to avoid mobilizing Republicans against congressional Democrats. Pleading lack of authority was the best way to fend off Latino activists demanding action.

But, then, when he did issue the order, he didn't do so humbly with even a stab at an explanation as to why he pulled such an astonishing switcheroo. He pretended that he hadn't really maintained otherwise, drowning out the protests of critics with a loud drum roll to court Hispanics. Indeed, because he was more interested in taking credit rather than giving relief, he didn't just quietly issue guidance to field administrators (which is what Verrilli insisted to the justices that DAPA effectively was), he announced a grand new policy and gave it a name, even boasting that he'd "changed the law," virtually daring his Republican critics to sue him like a bullfighter waving a red flag before a bull. It is almost as if he wanted to keep the issue politically alive rather than settle it.

This cynicism has come back to bite him. Should the ruling, which is expected in June, go against him, he may well deserve it—but the millions of hard working undocumented folks desperately waiting for relief don't. His mishandling may jeopardize his legacy, but it'll jeopardize their lives.

A version of this column appreared in The Week.

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.

89 responses to “Obama's Cynical Games May Doom Immigration Reform

  1. Tin soldiers and Barry coming

  2. “I have chosen not to apply the law to you” doesn’t mean the law doesn’t apply to you.

  3. And the LaRaza, open-border, amnesty crowd applauds this hack of a POTUS. This POTUS, who by ignoring his responsibilities to uphold the laws of the land, does little but anger the otherside, inhibiting any win-win compromise that would actually move us forward. The POTUS does this, not for compassion, but rather a cold electoral calculation, using the illegal immigrants as pawns in his games, jerking their lives around for no good reason.

    We should all be ashamed of this farce.

  4. These folks can obtain an official note from immigration authorities that they qualify for “deferred deportation status.” This designation, well within the purview of the presidency, makes them eligible for work authorization and driver’s licenses. What it doesn’t do is give them permanent legal status or green cards?in other words, amnesty.

    Tell me again how a legally enforcable immunity from prosecution isn’t “amnesty”?

    The action of a government by which all persons or certain groups of persons who have committed a criminal offense?usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government (such as Sedition or treason)?are granted Immunity from prosecution.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefre…..om/amnesty

    So it was up to Verrilli to put the administration’s best foot forward and stick to the language of “deferred deportation” and avoid the phrase “lawful presence” (although, to be fair, this semantic misstep can be traced back to the order itself).

    IOW, it wasn’t a misstep by Verrilli at all. He was arguing what he had to argue. Far from failing ti understand his own case, Verrilli understood it perfectly well.

    And granting them a lawful presence, rather then merely declining to prosecute, is unquestionably beyond the President’s powers, regardless of whether you think de facto nullification of a law is withing the President’s powers.

    1. Tell me again how a legally enforcable immunity from prosecution isn’t “amnesty”?

      But it’s only temporary. Or something.

      This stuff is just a Grade A example of working backwards from a desired result and trying to rationalize it.

      And granting them a lawful presence, rather then merely declining to prosecute, is unquestionably beyond the President’s powers, regardless of whether you think de facto nullification of a law is withing the President’s powers.

      Water has a better chance of penetrating a duck’s back that this statement has of penetrating Shikha’s skull.

    2. It is not legally enforceable. The INA is still law. And immigration judges can still enforce it. Administration policy does not trump statute. So if some ICE office somewhere decided it wanted to deport one of the holders of these cards, it could. These people have no legal status. They can be legally deported without a hearing before an immigration judge. Doing so would just violate administration policy but there is no legal remedy for violating policy.

      This program is much worse than even its worst critics imagine. If it isn’t undone it does something more and much worse and tyrannical than the President granting amnesty and rewriting the immigration laws. Since the laws on the books have never chanced, it gives the President to deport any hold of these cards for even the most base and arbitrary reasons he desires. It allows the President to threaten and bully the entire immigrant community whenever he wants.

      And people like Dalmia who claim to be pro immigrant are too stupid to understand that.

      1. It is not legally enforceable.

        I think it probably is. The technical name eludes me, but there is a doctrine that says if you get a specific (written?) statement from an enforcement agency that what you are doing is compliant (and/or, they won’t prosecute you), you are entitled to rely on it and can present it as a defense.

        1. It wouldn’t work here. The promise is illusory. There is nothing in those cards that says you will never be deported. The program is “deferred action”. The government can just say they have deferred and have decided to no longer do so.

          Also, you would likely never get before a judge to present that defense. If you have no legal status and are not calming to be a refugee, the government can deport you under what is called “expedited removal”. That doesn’t require a hearing before an immigration judge.

          Obama put the entire immigrant community under his thumb by doing this. It was a real Chicago move.

      2. Shikha is a very tiresome one-note hack, and while I usually just roll my eyes at her bullshit and move on, this article made me puke in my mouth.

        Go on, Shikha. Tell me I hate brown people. It’s not that I oppose the imperial presidency or anything. It’s not like what one president does unilaterally, another president can undo just as unilaterally, with probably really shitty results for everybody involved. It’s not that I’m unwilling to give a man of O’s supreme ineptitude the ability to just decide when and how not to apply the law. No, no. I must hate brown people. And furrin language. And tacos.

        Good results by bad means are not good results, Shikha. It’s not that far from this to drone strikes on other brown people. But you’re a shit-for-brains hack with a one-track mind, and I’m just a racist.

        1. She is indeed a vile, disgusting piece of shit, but this isn’t even close to the worst I’ve seen from her.

          The absolute lowest of the low was back several months ago when she wrote a piece basically calling Bobby Jindal a race traitor to her people and all Hindus, and the article even came with a charming little caricature picture of Jindal riding an elephant.

          1. “Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia.”

            And why in hell does she get this Reason Foundation Senior Analyst credit? Everybody else who writes for Reason just gets credited by their name.

            It looks like a preemptive overcompensation for the derp that is sure to follow.

            1. Beats me why Reason pays her. She is not a libertarian thinker, near as I can tell she has no guiding principles of any kind.

          2. So…..who is more despicable? Shikha or Sheldon?

            1. Shitka is more despicable, Seldon is just stupid.

  5. Mad props on the agit-prop photo, BTW. Why not one of the rioters at the Trump rally waving Mexican flags, I wonder?

    1. All immigrants are attractive lesbian flexible women who just want to come here and open an organic vegan taco stand or maybe drive for Uber. Didn’t you know that RC?

      1. Wait, which one’s attractive? The one with the big boobs? Maybe in a GMILF sort of way, I guess.

        1. I wouldn’t kick the one on the left out of bed. And the one the right would be okay if she were the tag along friend of the cute one.

          1. I suspect its a mother-daughter pair. The daughter is probably a “dreamer”.

            1. This is why Postrel hates us.

          2. Oh God, another journey into John’s sexual psyche.

            1. Think of it as training wheels for the next SugarFree joint.

  6. It is almost as if he wanted to keep the issue politically alive rather than settle it.

    His mishandling may jeopardize his legacy, but it’ll jeopardize their lives.

    Almost? That’s far too charitable. Immigration is shaping up to be the next abortion like “kulture war” issue. Nobody wants to settle it because it’s far more valuable as a cudgel to beat up the other TEAM with.

    As for Obama’s legacy: Duh, nothing is more important to that ego maniacal blowhard than that. Even if he does something good these last few months of his term – like re-scheduling weed – it’ll be for his own ego stroking purposes, nothing more.

    1. Almost? That’s far too charitable. Immigration is shaping up to be the next abortion like “kulture war” issue. Nobody wants to settle it because it’s far more valuable as a cudgel to beat up the other TEAM with.

      Yup. You know the Democrats don’t want to settle it because they owned the Congress and White House from 09 to 11 and never passed immigration reform or even tried to do so. If they wanted to settle the issue, they would have settled it.

      You know the Republicans don’t want to settle it because they all got a case of the vapors when Trump said he was going to deport everyone living here illegal. Just what the fuck do those ass clowns think a secure border means if not deporting people who are here illegally? Are they so stupid that they think you can secure the border without actually deporting anyone? I don’t think so. They don’t want to secure the border. They want to do nothing so the issue continues on as a political club.

      1. It’s to both parties benefit to never settle any of these issues. That being said, it’s starting to hurt the Republican leadership when they promise one thing and give another. Apparently, Democrats are just too stupid to notice when this happens until it’s the end of a Democratic Presidents second term. I only say this because they were apparently happy to vote in Obama a second time despite his track record of doing zero things he promised.

        And yeah, Immigration was something he talked about the first time around. If you’re a legal immigrant I imagine voting Democrat is looking less and less like a wise move. If you’re an illegal immigrant, you’ll probably still vote Democrat (with that shiney drivers license no less) but you’ll have a tough time finding a Democrat that actually cares about you vs. a Democrat that wants to keep you were you are, but promise they’re trying to elevate your legal status.

        1. If you are a legal immigrant, you more likely to be harmed by the effects of more illegal immigration than natives. There is no reason to think legal immigrants are going to be any more or less supportive or more immigration other than mindless tribal loyalty.

          1. mindless tribal loyalty

            There’s a lot of that going around these days.

        2. My theory is that the Democrats will actually deliver something, to their base. The GOPe only delivers vaporware and compromises that give the Democrats something, and the GOP base very little. GOPe does deliver for the donor class, though.

          Democrats may be disgruntled, but they got the ACA, for example.

          1. …which they universally despise, and the vast majority of them still view as a stepping stone to single payor even though that’s essentially what they were handed with the ACA. (Not that they understand either of those things.)

            They’re so angry with their party that they’re voting for an honest-to-god socialist and Trump. That doesn’t sound like ‘disgruntled’ to me.

            1. I hope both the DNC and GOP destroy themselves.

      2. Securing borders and deporting those already here illegally are two separate issues.

        1. No they are not. If you don’t deport the people here, you will never discourage people from trying to come. You can’t have a secure border if everyone knows all they have to do is get across and they get to say. The only way you secure the border is by discouraging people from trying to cross in the first place. And the only way to do that is make it clear they are never getting amnesty or getting to say if they come here illegally.

          1. Factually speaking, I have yet to hear anyone be serious on the subject of how to actually secure a 1,900 mile long stretch of anything. ‘Build a wall’ seems so facile and pointless that it barely should even get a mention, yet now this is our ‘go to’ solution for immigration? Laughable.

            1. I have yet to hear anyone be serious on the subject of how to actually secure a 1,900 mile long stretch of anything.

              This seemed to work OK for a pretty good while.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China

              Although, no wall in and of itself will do much. Its the willingness to shoot/detain people crossing it that counts.

              1. Building an effective wall across that amount of territory is already impossible (and is the part that I was specifically talking about that I didn’t see specifically answered beyond ‘put gud soldier there, kill browns!).

                Putting the men on it who are expected to shoot women and children along with drug runners is equally, it not more so, unlikely. (Can we maybe just automate the kid/woman killing? Seems we could outsource our morality on that one perhaps? I won’t be surprised when this is the ultimate solution to that issue since it’s what we’ve already done abroad.)

                Funding the ongoing appropriations for an indefinite, large army on American soil is not only unlikely, but also unconstitutional (Although I guess you just relabel it as another 100 year war, only in America and against day laborers? Or do we just relabel them as TSA Operatives?).

                Finding a group of businesses and politicians willing to build a wall that everyone already knows will be ineffective? Well that’s the easiest part and we can’t even do that right.

                1. Please do explain how using the military to defend our borders is unconstitutional.

                2. We have what you are describing. They are called electric fences. I suspect that multiple fences with high voltage along the top would be a pretty good deterrent.

                  It does not have to be perfect. No law enforcement is ever perfect. The argument raised that is is difficult, or some with get through is intended to sidetrack the conversation. As the old saying goes, “locks are intended to keep honest people honest”. If you discourage 98% you have been successful.

              2. Hire some Chinamen to build the wall. Then we only have to worry about some Goddamn Mongolians.

            2. Canada controls it via e-Verify like system. No demand, no supply.

              Physical barriers do work to some extent. See Israel. See San Diego border with Mexico. Used to be illegals streaming through there, until they built a wall.

              If I were in charge, I’d make a point of first going after European illegals. Supposedly 50,000 Irish illegals. Work on kicking them out first.

              Then no one will call you racist.

              1. Hmm…about that San Diego wall…

                http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=5323928

                “Kimsey says life is more peaceful now, despite the Border Patrol helicopters circling nearby. This is still an active smuggling route, especially for drugs. A stretch of border where there’s only one fence is referred to as Smugglers’ Gulch. The Border Patrol is moving forward with plans to add a second fence there as well as along the last 3.5 miles to the ocean, which had been held up by years of litigation over environmental concerns.

                The extra fencing will cost at least $35 million.”

                Yes, a fence beyond the fence and a fence that literally goes out into the ocean for only $35 million per 14 miles. Lets extrapolate that to at least a cost of ~4,500,00,000 dollars for the same effectiveness along the whole border, for just the fence, eh?

                1. *I should put two disclaimers on that news story.

                  A) It’s California, so expensive and extra-dumb. I think it’s fair to say the Federal Government is at least as expensive and dumb, but maybe not quite as much.

                  B) It’s a story from 2006, so inflation already means it would cost more.

                2. Compared to the alternative, that fence is a bargain.

              2. Fuck yeah! Boot those potato-headed assholes first!

            3. Well-armed drones.

  7. IOW, it wasn’t a misstep by Verrilli at all. He was arguing what he had to argue. Far from failing ti understand his own case, Verrilli understood it perfectly well.

    It’s Dalmia and/or ‘progressive libertarianism’. This administration has an established and admitted habit of interpreting the law after the fact. The only reason to assume *this time* the lawyer fucked it up is because either the wheel of fortune landed on ‘defense lawyer’ or you otherwise have some issue with blaming TOP MEN for their own actions.

    1. Taking in the unwanted minors from third world country is going to prove an expensive and virtually endless task. Who could have seen that coming?

      1. It ends when we become no better than the Third World, and nobody wants to come here. At that point the evils of colonialism will stop, and social justice will have been achieved. It’s only fair, John.

        1. IS this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize the progressives?

      2. The reason we returned Haitian boat people mercilessly was to make sure there is no incentive for them to attempt the trip. The same logic should apply here, but does not. Expect ever increasing waves.

      3. “Who could have seen that coming?”

        A certain carpenter.

        Suffer little children and forbid them not, to come unto me.

        1. Bearing in mind that only got his attention, not money stolen from other people.

    2. Note that the 75,000 teenagers is their estimate. So you know its low. Probably way low.

      1. Low by a couple orders of magintude.

    3. My issue with Immigration was never the people, it’s always been the cost.

      Of course, it’s way easier to make a strawman about how I’m a horrible Republican racist instead of wondering if, just maybe, there isn’t actually an infinite amount of money.

      1. My issue with Immigration was never the people, it’s always been the cost.

        And with the kind of people subsidies and welfare attract, to be perfectly honest.

        Someone coming here to work? I got no problem, and have hired many times. The hardest working manual laborers I have ever met were Mexicans, hands down.

        Someone coming here to sponge off of our schools, health care system, subsidized housing, and misc. welfare? No thanks.

        1. The amusing thing is they can be both of those things at the moment. You wave free cash in front of 95% of people’s face and they will take it. That’s called ‘rational self interest’.

  8. So if only the Feds have standing around immigration like Obama’s administration would have you believe…and they put their money where their mouth is by suing AZ over SB 1070….then how are sanctuary cities legal? Every liberal mayor in the country has set up a sancuary city…how is this legal?

    1. Its legal like Obama’s amnesty is legal, would be my guess.

    2. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is only bad when it involves the military and republicans. Duh, McFly!

    3. Cities just don’t enforce federal laws, which is their right.

      AZ wanted the state to enforce federal laws, which is “not their right.”

      1. ‘Rights’ are whatever Obama decides. They can be bestowed, or removed at his whim. It’s the progressive way.

  9. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.worknow88.com

  10. Wish the pundants would just call this what it really is….

    Democrats are in favor of Amnesty because it creates 10 million liberal voters. They want to turn Purple states blue.
    Republicans are against it for the very same reason.

    Democrats don’t care about the plight of the immigrant worker…any more than Republicans hate Brown people.

    If they could just grant resident status without any voting privilege or welfare program qualifications this would be easier to swallow.

    1. It also has the bonus of creating a defect slave class for the use of elites. Democrats may when about raising the minimum wage, but they sure don’t like to take money out of their pockets. Paying $5 per hour is a-ok for the progtard, but not for the rest of us.

  11. 6?Once I saw the draft of 6258 bucks,,, I admit that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash in his free time with his PC. His uncle’s neighbor has done this for only 8 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car ..HY01…

    ====== Financereport.alpha-careers.com

  12. The SCOTUS shouldn’t be divided. Just follow what your documents lay down as law. But no one cares for them to do that.

    [OT]
    Everything that had recognized liberty as a good thing and hard reality as truth has been scrapped from the private sector. Can’t believe to see people going after music legends over more rape allegations, they’re after KRS1 now for the song “13 n good”. It has to be because the newer generation is becoming the executives… bcus of their college diplomas, and connections, I bet.

    We’re too spoiled. Something needs to hit rock bottom, already.

    1. Anything that starts the revolt against progressivekind is a good thing.

  13. This article and Reason are in the legal weeds. Need to clarify big picture. And step 1 is get terms right. Step 2 is get principles right. This ain’t about generic “Immigration.” This is about a specific body of immigrants with a specific skill set and how they fit in our economy and society–namely zero-skill peasants from south of the border whose productivity is so low they are net consumers of government goodies. Yes libertarians should be personally welcoming to newcomers but heed Milton Friedman’s caveat: You can have large entitlement state, or open borders, but you can’t have both. We get rid of the entitlement state, then I will personally donate bus tickets to bring Mexicans in. Until then–building a wall is not only moral but cost-effective.

    1. You can’t have large entitlement state, his solution of closed borders is just about prolonging the inevitable.

    2. It’s not even about immigration.

      If Congress passes a law that says that Group A does not qualify for benefits, can the president then decide to give the benefits to Group A, FYTW

  14. my co-worker’s aunt makes $84 an hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay was $19262 just working on the computer for a few hours. learn this here now

    ??? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  15. Typical liberal teleology. Legalizing (even temporarily) illegal aliens is desirable for most libertarians, so never mind that we get there by unilateral executive action that even Big Brother Barry repeatedly admitted he had no legal power to do. Note that the prosecutorial discretion that keeps them from being deported wouldn’t actually allow them to have jobs or collect government welfare payments. By seeking to do that, the Obama Gang shows that they’ve gone beyond their legal powers.

    1. Which only helps when powerful progressives are held legally accountable for their crimes. Currently, they are not.

  16. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  17. I quit myy office job and now I am getting paid 56 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 1 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…UI2

    ========== http://www.reportmax90.com

  18. It has come to the point, where when I see a article from Shikha, I know it will be Shitma. Maybe she should just change her name for clarity.

    All the twisted, standing her head arguments, and does she actually thing it persuades anyone?

  19. Obama’s Cynical Games May Doom Immigration Reform

    How dare you question Dear Leader’s policy regarding immigration!
    Don’t you know he can do no wrong?
    The New York Times has said so many times.
    When was the last time the NYT was wrong?
    Everyone must conform to Dear Leader’s group think or socialism will never take place in this country.

  20. I believe, depending on the upcoming election, immigration reform is possible. First, if Trump wins and the Republican Party maintains their majorities in Congress, I believe real immigration reform is possible because the Republican Party is going to be sent a message that they won’t be able to mistake. The people want results, they want problems dealt with and they don’t want excuses.

  21. I believe, depending on the upcoming election, immigration reform is possible. First, if Trump wins and the Republican Party maintains their majorities in Congress, I believe real immigration reform is possible because the Republican Party is going to be sent a message that they won’t be able to mistake. The people want results, they want problems dealt with and they don’t want excuses.

  22. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  23. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  24. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  25. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  26. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  27. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  28. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

  29. People are facing different challenges in their daily lives. They need to come up with good results to prove themselves or somebody else that they are worthy of doing so. Basically, these tasks are evaluated according to their degree of effectiveness and efficiency. Whether you are in a business owner, an employee, or an ordinary person at home, it is highly essential to management effectiveness well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.