Is Obama a President or King?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm unaware of the ethical principal that requires treating foriegn guests exactly the same as natural citizens. For the record, I'm not proposing giving guest workers the vote, either. I would like to see streamlined immigration too (maybe automatic on application after two years with a Visa and not getting in serious trouble), but that's a somewhat separate matter.

Are you aware of the ethical principle of treating others as you would be treated? For my part, I'm aware that this just doesn't apply when it comes to legality and citizenship (but shouldn't it?). Shit sandwich, and it's a big one for me.

Why would we want to catch them? Why would Homeland Security help?

For the same reason that we'd want to be able to catch an immigrant who committed a crime. I don't imagine that Homeland Security would help with that (but I often wonder if Homeland Security actually "helps" to begin with).

Why should guest workers automatically get all the same rights and privileges as natural citizens?

For the same reasons that we extend them to ourselves. Let's see what a re-write would look like

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - unless we're talking mexicans"

I'm going to add that to the end of every right, every justification. Neither you nor I would put our names on that. I think that I'd have a hard time selling that as a compromise to anyone I'd care to include in a compromise.

Why should this quibble get in the way of people actually getting to come to work in this country? 'Sorry, we almost had a guest worker program that would have let almost anyone who isn't a known criminal come to the USA legally and indefinitely, but the swab issue killed it. Maybe in another decade or two.'

It shouldn't.....but then again, I don't think that there should even be a quibble. I understand the value of pragmatism, there are very few things that I make a stand on purely for ideological grounds - but this is one of them...because as I said...I just don't think it's that hard to make -this- stand.

Slippery slope arguments tend to be fallacious, and you don't strike me as the 'FEMA death camp' type. People don't choose to be born in the USA, so natural citizens would have no way of avoiding the requirement except to 'go underground' or flee the country. In a political climate where terrorism is a leading (if overblown) concern, passage of such a guest visa program might hinge on identification issues.

Despite our -actual- terrorism issues being firmly domestic. I'm being asked to cater to the bigoted and irrational as a matter of national policy? That's going to be a pretty rough row to hoe, and the slope is indeed extremely slippery....

If you were trying to feed your family and the difference between getting in legally and having to give thousands of dollars to a coyote to smuggle you over to an existence where you're constantly looking over your shoulder for INS; and a swab would make the difference, you might see the value in compromise.

It won't make the difference. Even the legals are constantly looking over their shoulder for INS (and so are citizens of the wrong color). We're already about as ridiculous regarding this shit as I can stomach, I've had to hear these stories my whole life in the fields.

And I get your objections. I just don't think they trump letting people enter the country legally when all they want is a job. If it makes issuing guest visas palatable enough to get it happening sooner than later, I'm okay with it. I'm okay with visas that favor Mexcican and Canadian citizens over other nationalities, too.

I get that there's a tension between idealism and pragmatism. But 'best' shouldn't get in the way of 'better'.

But that -won't- make it palatable to them because that -isn't- their objection...that'll just set the bar lower and that will be the tone going forward ....the bar is already pretty low if we're discussing the merits of treating people like criminals as a rule in order to get -anything- done.......

All that said, even my modest proposal getting passed is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy in any foreseeable political climate except the realization that we need Mexicans and South Americans here to support our economy. I have some slight hope that the argument that knowing who is entering the country puts us in a better situation regarding national security than we are in currently will carry some weight, and I am heartened that over half of Americans are good with some kind of immigration reform, but I'm still not optimistic that the next change will not be 20 steps forward and 19 steps back, because of where our legislators are at.

Then perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not treating people like criminals is a good compromise, but whether or not electing those (and putting those forward for election - and putting bills forward to be passed) who would treat people like criminals is such a good idea. Focus on that until it sticks. Focus hard, focus loud, so it sticks quicker.

That we are willing to pay the price of not feeling good about our integrity if it will help desperate people who only want to make a better life for themselves.

By telling them that they can come on over, so long as we get to treat them like criminals, so long as we can put the boot on them in ways that would make us cringe, so long as they will accept what we would not? I am never going to participate in this compromise (and neither will people like me). If we want immigration reform- and if someone wants the votes necessary to put people in place- then I demand a better range of options to compromise upon, a better class of salesman. That's not an unreasonable requirement. In the meantime I'll do what I've always done, help them game and break our shitty laws. I'm not going to give the okay to some "separate but equal" bullshit...you know where I'm from.....you know why.

I'm only questioning whether or not things are actually so bad that if we spoke up this sort of compromise would be required, that this sort of compromise would be necessary (and obviously I doubt that it would even be effective anyway) - isn't it possible that if we actually gave a shit - or if someone gave us a reason to give a shit...it wouldn't be? If it is, so be it, but I still won't be a part of it - I guess we'll just have to hope that there are enough people willing to accept this sort of "business as usual" politicking?

[Brian37]

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms.

And at the very same time voters showed their overwhelming preference for progressive laws & initiatives. Nearly every single proposed progressive ballot initiative either became law or at least had a majority (over 51%) while the regressive initiatives such as "personhood" failed nationwide. Almost all of the Demos that did win were running progressive campaigns, not trying to prove they were Repub-lite centrists.

This shows that the GOP and the Koch brother types are experts in pitting otherwise unified people against each other.

But to claim the GOP won this midterm is false. If we look at long term voting habits of both parties and president power vs congress, we flip, and that is not a mandate as much as the public saying "get something done".

In this case it isn't as much as the GOP won as much as it was like a fumble on the Dems part in messaging and getting out the vote.

[Jaysyn]

In this case it isn't as much as the GOP won as much as it was like a fumble on the Dems part in messaging and getting out the vote.

It's also a known fact that voter turn-out on midterms is far weaker than on presidential election years, especially among democratic voters.

[Heywood]

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms.

No, they didn't.

35% turnout.

That's not a reflection of the American people.

Voter turnout in a mid term is about 40% and had this last election seen a 40% turnout the results would have been substantially the same. Democrats wouldn't have gotten trounced as bad....but they still would have gotten trounced. If rationalizing your ass whooping makes you sleep better.....go for it.....at least you're not harming the country with your bad policies.

[Brian37]

No, they didn't.

35% turnout.

That's not a reflection of the American people.

Voter turnout in a mid term is about 40% and had this last election seen a 40% turnout the results would have been substantially the same. Democrats wouldn't have gotten trounced as bad....but they still would have gotten trounced. If rationalizing your ass whooping makes you sleep better.....go for it.....at least you're not harming the country with your bad policies.

Your selfishness and narcissism is showing again. You really need to learn there is a HUGE difference between tyranny like North Korea or Saudi Arabia and not always getting what you want. You are merely a whiny little snot because you don't always get what you want.

[Heywood]

Your selfishness and narcissism is showing again. You really need to learn there is a HUGE difference between tyranny like North Korea or Saudi Arabia and not always getting what you want. You are merely a whiny little snot because you don't always get what you want.

I have very few wants to begin with......which is why I don't get butthurt like you when I don't like the results of an election.

[TheGulegon]

I'd say let him be King if he'd only take that kind of initiative in dealing with even bigger problems than immigration! Namely castrating Banks, Corporations, and any other entity (like Republicunts, and religitards), out to screw the people already living here out of their money, & rights!

[Rev. Rye]

I'd say let him be King if he'd only take that kind of initiative in dealing with even bigger problems than immigration! Namely castrating Banks, Corporations, and any other entity (like Republicunts, and religitards), out to screw the people already living here out of their money, & rights!

Quite frankly, I'm honestly surprised he didn't try something like this sooner. Given that Obama's congresses are obstructive to the point that they're willing to completely tank the country's economy just to spite him (see: the debt ceiling fiascos), it's a wonder he took so long to actually get something done.

[professor]

Obama was elected as a president but views himself a king.
His purpose is to destroy the nation.
He personally is a judgment on America.

He is agitating race aggression intentionally.
That is the reason he went to speak privately to the rabble orchestrating
the Ferguson riots,telling them to not stop short of their goal.
He could care less about the damage to people and property.

Black people who are informed (like David Manning) see he is no friend of Blacks.
Manning stated. "Obama has done NOTHING to help black people...he has a "Bully Pulpit" (to help) but has done nothing... (from an interview on youtube with RT)

The same thing Obama pawns did with the Arab Spring.
Secular dictators were replaced with radical Muslims to facilitate more conflict with Islam.
They initially succeeded in Egypt, but their henchman was removed.
Assad is in the sights for the same reason.

Factor 2 is none of those removed dictators had a central bank connected to the World bank.
They were considered rogues by the Establishment elete.

War= peace
The Man of peace (Nobel prize for doing nothing) brings war =
Hegelian dialectic in action.

[Jaysyn]

Close it up folks, the voice of reason is here. You know, you may just want to start taking those schizophrenia meds again.

Just a thought.