RE: Is Obama a President or King?
November 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm
(This post was last modified: November 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(November 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's easy to be involved in violent and criminal activity in the states without there being a record of it- and yet...we don't require that of our citizens.
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.
(November 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: DNA sampling means we'd be able to catch our own domestics better as well.
Why would we want to catch them? Why would Homeland Security help?
(November 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Any argument you make for it that you don't immediately extend to our own citizens is just going to get both barrels from me.
Why should guest workers automatically get all the same rights and privileges as natural citizens? 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.'
(November 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If it would alarm you that our government was doing something to americans, it ought to alarm you when they do it to others (after all, you and I know they're just practicing for when they -do- get to do it to americans).
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.
(November 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's just not a difficult ideal to live up to at all, I see no value in compromise on this point.
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.
(November 20, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I understand that it's just compromise for you, I'm just cautioning against even -considering- such a "compromise".
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'.
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.
(November 20, 2014 at 6:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Let me put this another way, soberly consider what we're discussing as "just a compromise" - why should we ever find ourselves in a position to be so casual about such a thing, as to dangle it in front of bigots to -appease them-? What would that say about -us-?
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.
(November 20, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Heywood Wrote:(November 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Being elected president makes him president. America doesn't have a king. He isn't doing anything that can't be overridden by congress or the next president.
If Obama re-writes the laws he is effectively a king. It doesn't matter what congress would pass...he'd re-write the law with an executive order.
Executive orders are not laws nor re-writes of laws.
(November 20, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: Now Obama may have it in his power to defer the prosecution and deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants.
It's a certainty that the president has this power.
(November 20, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: He certainly does not have the power to issue an executive order making those illegal immigrants legal.
That is correct.
(November 20, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: The law is pretty clear, it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants. If Obama makes it legal to hire illegal immigrants he is definitely over stepping his bounds and effectively re-writing laws.
Good thing that what he actually did was halt prosecution of people who hire a certain class of illegal immigrants. That doesn't make it legal.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(November 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: ...the liberal bias of the other networks...
Anyone who was still attached to the myth of the "liberal bias" of the media should have been disabused of that delusion during the W Bush years.
Let's see: Fox News was established a few years before George W. Bush became president. Could that have had an effect on the way the media was leaning?
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The media shamelessly turned into a bunch of cheer leaders in the run up to the Iraq War and then swept it all under the rug when it turned out to be based on lies.
War is good for ratings, as is controversy about war. Since the evening news became ratings-driven, it has been fairly non-partisan in making sure the American public supports war.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: They even managed to create an artificial moratorium on the words "lie" or "liar", condemning anyone uttering those words as impolitic and "shrill".
By 'ban' you seem to mean 'editorial decision'.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: This ban lasted until some people had their health insurance plans canceled and suddenly the word "lie" was in vogue again. It was all changed on a fucking dime like the propaganda in Orwell's 1984.
That's what Fox news is for. Can you justify your insinuation that I think otherwise?
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If you work in the media and you either are a liberal or report on a story sympathetic to liberals, you are skating on thin ice.
It didn't used to be that way.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Your career hangs by a thread. You make one mistake and you are FIRED. You made an honest mistake? Fuck you, you're fired! You have 25 years with us? Fuck you, you're fired! Turns out you were completely right about what you said? Fuck you, you're fired! You're lucky if we don't physically throw you out and dump the contents of your desk out the window.
Used to be that an open conservative had a great deal of trouble getting hired by the networks, and 90% of their journalists self-identified as liberals, to the point that a conservative journalism major was more likely to find employment in a conservative think-tank than at a news station.
I remember when Bill Clinton was elected. Leading up to the election, the economic news was all gloom and doom, despite Bush Senior's insistence that the economy had started turning around months ago. The week after Clinton was elected--not took office, was elected--the economic news suddenly turned good and the networks were doing man-in-the-street interviews crediting Clinton for the 'sudden' turn-around. The particularly blatant piece of journalistic bias (that arguably handed Clinton the election, since it's rare for a president not to win a second term when the economy is on the upswing) would galvanize the right wing to prioritize media influence going forward.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If you work in the media and you are either a conservative or report on a story sympathetic to conservatives, there is no accountability for any mistakes or even gross negligence. You can shit yourself on air, pull it out of your pants and fling it at the camera. At most, you may go to the penalty box for a month or two and then be back on the air with nothing said.
How old are you? You seem to think Fox News has always existed.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: See Lara Logan and Dan Rather for an apples to apples example. There are many others I can name.
Again, you seem to think I believe there is a current liberal bias in the media, based on little I have said. I suppose I'm a little flattered that I can say seven words and you'll devote so much effort to them.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If Republicans win an election, even if it's a 51/49 win, it's reported as a "mandate" and the discussion turns to "how will the Democrats come to the center" (as if they're not already centrist enough).
If Democrats win an election, even if it's a landslide, it's reported as "a call for bipartisanship" and the discussion turns to "how will the Democrats still include the Republican minority as they govern".
I think you watch too much Fox News.
(November 20, 2014 at 10:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Liberal
Media
My
Ass
Because life before 1996 doesn't count?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.