home

Republicans Hyperventilate Over Obama's Modest Immigration Reform

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:52:00 AM EST
Tags: immigration reform (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Republicans are hyperventilating about President Obama's modest immigration reforms. If they had a clue what real immigration reform entails, they'd probably have a collective heart attack. Here are a few reform proposals that go much further than what Obama called for last night: [More...]

Also see Pew Research Center's latest fact sheet on the undocumented. Pew's statistics are here. Here is Pew's estimate of how many would be affected by Obama's plan.

Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with their opposition to Obama's modest plan. The reality is:

< 5 Guantanamo Detainees Transfered to Georgia and Slovakia | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans Hyperventilate Over Obama's Modest Immigration Reform | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 07:32:22 AM EST
    agenda for the next two years is the following:Climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and Benghazi hearings.

    So I guess their reaction to the immigration situation is thinly veiled racism and paranoia.

    A little edit from me, Ga6th (none / 0) (#11)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    It may be more accurate to delete the words "thinly veiled' before "racism and paranoia."  Given the comments already from soon-to-be-former Cong. Bachmann and continuing Cong. Stephen King as forerunners, it is reasonable to expect that the "racism and paranoia" from the Repubs will be rather overt.

    Also: I would add to your first paragraph (as to Repub agenda over the next 2 yrs ..."Gruber" to alternate with "Benghazi."

    Question: Do you foresee the introduction of any (as in "any") Repub plan as legislation now that they will control both houses of Congress?

    Parent

    My prediction: (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    It's going to be 24/7 jihad from the GOP and nothing is going to happen. They're not going to pass anything and Mitch's saying they were going to pass bipartisan legislation is not going to happen. Once again, all that was beltway blathering and not based on reality. Reality is what the GOP is doing now--nothing pretty much. Apparently the house is going to do nothing but send more crackpot legislation to the senate.

    Parent
    Will be interesting to see if the Senate (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    Dems filibuster, or let the votes happen and let Obama veto the crackpot stuff. I hope the latter.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    my advice would be to let the GOP vote on the crackpot legislation and all the Dems vote against it. If Mitch McConnell can round up enough votes for personhood for a zygote to actually pass the senate then have at it. Obama will veto that kind of stuff anyway and we all can start laughing at the GOP. Or McConnell can sit on it and watch for the firing squad.

    Parent
    Maybe they'll dial back Benghazi ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:44 AM EST
    ... now that Darrell Issa's no longer House Oversight Committee chair. Or maybe not, since theHouse GOP leadership appointed the equally obtuse Jason Chaffetz to replace him.

    Parent
    Maybe they'll hyperventilate enough (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    that they'll turn blue and pass out.   ;-)

    Parent
    Then Blame Obamacare... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    ...for letting them fall down and bleed out.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    that Trey Gowdy was hidden from sight and had tape put around his mouth before the November elections. Trey Gowdy is the kind of the screeching jihad and if they do anything on Benghazi he's going to be the one that is going to lead it. Very bad face for the GOP that guy has. Issa was taken off of Benghazi because he apparently couldn't even confirm his own conspiracy theories. It's hard to believe there are people in the GOP that make even Daryl Issa look like a member of Mensa.

    Parent
    They won't have any time (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    to exploit Benghazi, or any other political
    "sideshow," not with so much serious work to be done.

    A good example of an area that needs attention would be The Environment. Now, everyone knows the environment has become way too clean these past few decades under Democratic leadership. So, as proponents of the concept that "there's two sides to every story," something had to be done to correct this imbalance, right? Luckily, the Republicans had just the guy to tackle this issue head-on, Oklahoma Senator, James Inhofe. Yes, you heard correctly, the environment's #1 enemy, and Star Global warming denier, is in line to head the Senate committee that handles global warming and the environment.

    Now, I understand that one could be a little skeptical about this appointment, but one would be mistaken. Not only is Sen. Inhofe serious about the environment, he emphasized his commitment to it by comparing the EPA to The Gestapo,  and, its Administrator, Carol Browner, to Tokyo Rose. You see, to understand Inhofe's comments in the proper light you have to realize that comparing the EPA to The Gestapo is, in Inhofe's view, a compliment.

    I know, I know; right about now you may be a little shaky, and, think this appointment, what with its reference to certain unsavory characters from bygone times, might not have been the best they could find. But, once again, you would be wrong. How do I know that? Because, Buster, none other than The Big Guy, Numero Uno, The One, told me, that's why.

    Just listen to Senator Inhofe's intelligent, reasoned, and irrefutable explanation:  

    "God's still up there." I think its "outrageous" and arrogant for people to believe human beings are "able to change what He is doing in the climate."

    And, if that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    I think that falls under the category of climate denial.

    Parent
    The new House report (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    out late today exonerates Obama administration and dispels all the crackpot theories.  The Republican House.

    End of issue.

    Parent

    Joyful. That's how I feel right now knowing that (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 07:35:27 AM EST
    something is finally being done to address this issue in a meaningful way.  

    He is Playing Russian Roulette... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    ...with other people.  What happens when his term ends and the next person decides to reverse it, or worse, then all these people who came out of the woodwork are known.

    It's a great idea so long as the Pres isn't an R or Congress doesn't doesn't create a bill that the R voters want.  He can veto, but that is basically a two year plan and I think most of these folks plan on living a bit longer.

    Plus of course, this business of using executive orders, which is great when your party is in that position, but problematic when you party isn't running the show.  

    I like it, but it's basically what our government is becoming, focused entirely too much on short term and not understanding the the implications of this non-sense for the long term when roles are reversed and the next person decides to call prisoners of war, enemy combatants and housed offshore so they can legally be tortured...

    And republicans, put-up or shut-up, this would not be an issue if the people you voted for would do their GD jobs instead of passing the buck to the grown-ups.  Not doing anything isn't anyone's fault but the people who keep voting for the idiots that have refused to deal with the issue for at least a decade.

    'Wonder how likely it is (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    to take away--in plain view--the life-changing relief that is given here ... particularly after a couple years of living with it on all sides.  The practical reality?  Sure it can be done, but could it be done without also banishing the party that would reverse that which was given?

    I read a comment today attributed to the NYTimes' Jeff Zelleny, where in he raised the question about the likelihood of that kind of reversal? He noted the big difference between theory and political/governing reality.  In doing so, he said to expect that every 2016 Presidential candidate will be asked the question as to what he/she would do ... for the record to report over & over again.  

    Just like the matter of reality as to votes for immigration reform in the previous and present Congress--and, clearly, the Congress convening in January--theory is a bit different than what can and does happen.  IMO, the President did the best he could in moving toward and delivering this Executive action.  Based upon the initial comments and reactions from those most directly effect, it appears that Latinos understand and support the plan. (When I first learned how to play various card games, my Dad advised to learn how to deal with the hand you are dealt ... and, deal with it ... because there will be other hands to come. Lots of similar analogies can also be used.)

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    The "temporary" protection against deportation is the best the president can do.  However, in my view, it is very unlikely that this aspect of the executive order will be repealed by a Republican president (and certainly not, by a Democratic president.)

    More likely, in the event of a Republican president, the executive action would be suspended or curtailed, but not undone for those families affected.  The humanity issues alone should prohibit it, but, if that is not persuasive,  the politics would not abide it.

    The president's leadership should be a jump-start to legislation: the best avenue for the Republicans to take is to pass their own version of immigration reform, embracing the family unification themes as their own.   In two years,  the Republicans "process" arguments will have long ago faded, and their "cooperation" on fixing the "broken immigration system"  will be able to get them out of the corner they have painted themselves into-- with a minimum of paint on their tasseled loafers. Of course, since this is the smart thing to do, it will not happen.  Rush and Fox will not have it.

    Parent

    KeysDan, I don't quite get this part. (none / 0) (#37)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    More likely, in the event of a Republican president, the executive action would be suspended or curtailed, but not undone for those families affected

    What would be the difference between suspending the action versus undoing it? Wouldn't both result in no protection from deportation?

    Parent

    My thinking is (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    that a repeal would not affect those already processed, but the program would be curtailed or suspended as of a certain point in the future.  Essentially, the window would close on the fingers of those still in line.  But, even, that, to me, does not seem feasible or practicable. no matter how much a successor Republican president might want to do so or be pressured to do so by certain constituents.  Better to continue the program and try to placate those constituents by being "trapped"  into continuance by his Democratic predecessor.  

    Parent
    Thanks. That makes sense. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    to me, does not seem feasible or practicable. no matter how much a successor Republican president might want to do so or be pressured to do so by certain constituents.

    I wish I had your faith on this. But, with some of the nut jobs out there, I would not be surprised if they cut off their nose to spite their face!

    Parent

    I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    ...but it's not our families being at risk.

    It's one thing to say the odds are relatively low, it's quite another to be in that low risk group, when you could just do what you have been doing to stay under the radar.  It's a low risk, but coming up on the losing end has severe consequences.

    What if HRC doesn't run and someone like Rand Paul ends up in the White House and Congress remains in R control.  Relatively low odds, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

    I would not bet the security of my family on republicans being decent human beings or letting it go.

    Wonder how likely it is to take away--in plain view--the life-changing relief that is given here ... particularly after a couple years of living with it on all sides.

    No idea, but one could easily make the same remarks about ACA and that was enacted by Congress and upheld by the SCOTUS.

    Parent

    I made a similar comment on the earlier (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    thread.

    Jeralyn has touched on a few points that I think are very important. The relief is just temporary. People are being asked to come out of the shadows, pay back taxes, etc., with no guarantee that the risk they will be taking won't come back to bite them in 3 years. Plus, they get no benefits. Assuming most of these people are low income, they still get no help with healthcare, housing, etc.
     So, I don't see the advantage in coming out. Wouldn't it make sense for people to just keep things the way they are? This way they have relief from deportation but they don't have to put their info out there in case things get ugly in 3 years?

    If it was my family, there is no way would I risk it.

    Parent

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    ...I am with you 100%.

    As mentioned below, getting a 2 year reprieve is awesome, but getting my family in a database that could be used in the future to 'send us back' is one hell of a risk and not alleviating the anxiety of knowing tomorrow could be the day they tare us apart.

    My family right now is basically me, but I would like to think if I had kids and a wife we would figure what to do, but volunteering for something that could go horribly bad would not be an easy decision.

    I do disagree with benefits angle.  There are lots of them, just off the top of my head, being legally able to drive and purchase insurance is huge.  Getting the kids in school and not having to hide who they are is another.  Not having to worry that someone might slip up and tell a friend who tells a friend and before you know it, you are not with your family.  Being able to call the cops when a crime has been committed, just the real basic stuff citizens more or less take for granted.  It's the first step into integration, getting on equal footing in the eyes of the law and government is huge for everyone.

    We will see very soon if immigrants think the risk is worth it.

    Parent

    I was thinking federal benefits when I said (none / 0) (#50)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    they won't get any benefits.

    Of course, the relief of knowing that you are protected from being deported is a huge benefit in itself.

    As for the other benefits you mention, I am not very knowledgeable about those. So, feel free to correct my misconceptions. I thought all kids could go to school, undocumented or not.
    I also don't understand how the DL situation works, since every state makes their own rules for DL eligibility. What happens in this situation?
    I understand that federal law trumps state law, but this is executive action not federal law. So, how does it work? I find this all very confusing!

    On a side note, I was very surprised that this happened in Oregon of all states.

    Parent

    It is always better to have the guarantee (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    ... and, not even be subject to low risk.  Of course.  But, after many, many months of working to get any form of bipartisanship necessary to get that guarantee by way of legislation, the hand dealt was other than the hoped for hand.  Apparently, per reports today, the President made the complete decision to go the executive action route when John Boehner continued to refuse <after the election> to bring any immigration legislation (including the still-extant Senate package) to the floor.

    So, here we are. Ultimately--whether months or years from now--there will be acceptable immigration reform. The demographic reality speaks to that (even in Texas:))

    Parent

    Again, I Agree... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 05:09:13 PM EST
    ...I was just pointing out there is a risk.  

    Easy for us to say "Great, finally someone decided to be the adult." When for some people the stress isn't going to disappear, they will get a 2 year reprieve, that will most certainly put them in a database, which after two years could become very problematic.

    It had to be done, but these families are not in the clear until someone decides to legislate the changes.

    Parent

    Legalizing (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:55:51 AM EST

    Legalizing more foreign workers than jobs created during his administration does not seem appropriate to describe as  a "moderate" measure.  Great for big corporations looking for cheap labor.  But bad news for working class Americans whose median income is falling and we'll continue to fall with new low wage competition.


    You're assuming... (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    the undocumented weren't working before, and now will flood the job market because they are getting work permits.  

    Which is nonsense, they were always working because food and rent waits for no papers, now there is a better chance they will be protected by labor laws (including minimum wage laws) and a better chance they will be paying all applicable taxes on income.  

    Shouldn't that make everybody happy?

    Parent

    You've only now noticed the decline ... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    ... in middle class median household income? Geez, where've you been these past four decades?

    Bit more to the point, the root cause of that decline is hardly immigration and reform efforts thereof. Your argument serves only to underscore the fact that white Republicans will even go so far as to decry the dire results of their own economic policies, if it affords them an opportunity to bash immigrants and thus gin up their base of dim-bulbed rubes, who for their part repeatedly fail to put two and two together.

    :-(

    Parent

    Today the Right is in Love... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    ...with the American worker, tomorrow, when the discussion is minimum wage, unions, health care, teachers, or benefits for any of the above, those same workers will be lazy good for nothing SOB's who something for nothing.

    Parent
    If you would look at the link (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    you will find that the middle class income when adjusted for inflation peaked in 2000 with a modest decline then a rise to near peak in 2007 after which it went into decline with a net loss of 8.4% by the end of 2013.

    Also of interest is that the top end made out much better than everyone else.

    And your are correct, it doesn't appear to be immigration related. However, if you look at the poorest quintile it has been hit hardest and additional "legalized" competition in their job markets will further depress wages and harm working conditions.

    Link

    There is a reason why the Chamber of Commerce wants "reform."

    Labor is a commodity. When are tomatoes the cheapest??

    And H1 visas flat out depress the wages in the tech field. I have been there and seen that.

    That is why I oppose what Obama has done. He has not secured the borders. All he has done is insure a continuing influx of cheap labor that will hurt the poorest of both our citizens and the new "legal" workers.

    Parent

    It Peaked at the End... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    ...of Clinton's Presidency ?  Interesting.

    Jim, please look at the numbers again, if they are to be believed, which strata/stratum are you using for middle class ?

    Parent

    Yes it peaked in 2000 and 2007 (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    it previously had peaked in 1989, 79 and 73 and 69.

    That would be 2 Demos and 3 Repubs.

    You can almost chart the recessions associated.

    For example, the NASDAQ ran off 50% between 3/2000 and 3/2001. The Demos took over both Houses of Congress in 2007 and the decline started culminating   in  the housing bubble and oil prices.

    Middle quintile.

    Parent

    This is funny (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 07:12:00 AM EST
    Presidents get the credit for the median income "peaks" that occur during their administrations because it's "2 Demos and 3 Repubs", but the "decline" (aka Great Recession) in 2007 was because "the Demos took over both Houses of Congress".

    Why the sudden change in metric, Jim?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Correlation doesn't necessarily (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    imply causation.

    The 2007 Congress caused the housing bubble to burst?

    Let's look at the record:

    When President Obama declared in December that decades of Republican trickle-down economics "never worked," conservatives were predictably apoplectic. Instead, they should have been ashamed.

    To be sure, George W. Bush provided the perfect bookend to era of modern Republican economic management ushered by Herbert Hoover. The verdict on President Bush's reign of ruin was pronounced even before Barack Obama took the oath of office. Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times on January 24, 2009 featured an analysis ("Economic Setbacks That Define the Bush Years") comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth.(Ed)

    On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." (The Journal's interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn't merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton's tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush's job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover



    Parent
    Yes, wages will go down (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    And conditions will worsen now that these people will not be fearful of being deported if they speak up about those conditions unlike before.

    Parent
    Wages and conditions (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    are two separate issues.

    Wages will be effected because there will continue to be a source of cheap labor.

    Working conditions won't improve when someone complains because s/he will just be fired and replaced with someone willing to work for less and in bad conditions.

    The key is to shut off the new supply while absorbing those here. Obama isn't interested in that. He just wants to play political games.

    The Chamber of Commerce will support him for their reasons. The Left will support him for their reasons,

    Parent

    Bullpucky (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    Why would immigrants who don't have to worry about la migra for now accept cheaper wages?

    You're the one who linked them together in your previous remark and now they're separate issues.

    Would you please make up your mind before deciding to pontificate about immigrants again?


    Parent

    Let me try and be succinct. (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 06:32:04 PM EST
    Mondiggian wrote:

    Why would immigrants who don't have to worry about la migra for now accept cheaper wages?

    Because Obama has not and will not shut the border down. This will insure a continuing supply of labor. In addition, the previously undocumented who have been "legalized" will be competing for jobs that they previously could not.

    Same number of jobs with more people equals stagnant or lower wages. We have seen clearly shown in my link.

    The same applies for working conditions. The worker who complains will be fired.

    So one issue is the increase in workers caused by Obama's "legalizing" undocumented workers and failing to close borders allowing the flood of undocumented people to continue.

    Note that "legalizing" and providing papers is making law. He is not using discretion to not prosecute.

    I apologize if I confused you.

    Parent

    Obama, the guy who has sent more people (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 06:43:24 PM EST
    Back across the border than any President in recent history, will not shut the the border down because why?

    Yes, I'm very confused.  I don't think I'm the only person coming away from a discussion with you feeling that way.  😒

    Parent

    You seek to stalk and insult (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    So I will just leave you noting that the issue isn't deportations, but the failure to close the border.

    Have a nice night and please don't reply.

    Parent

    Whatever (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 07:34:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Serious question, Jim. (none / 0) (#58)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:21:59 PM EST
    How do you "close" a border that is 2000 miles long?

    Parent
    Serious answer (2.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    With troops, technology and by capturing and immediately returning everyone who comes across.

    Being sent straight back would do wonders to depress the motivation.

    Parent

    Tinkering with the Free Market (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:52:47 PM EST
    You are trying to create air tight borders when the economics at present resist that.

    As the Mexican and other developing economies catch up, immigration will naturally decrease...

    Anything else is just spitting in the wind.

    Parent

    And in the long run we will all be dead (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    International trade is not a "free market."

    Countries have always used tariffs, etc., to protect their citizens.

    Parent

    This is true (none / 0) (#40)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    And H1 visas flat out depress the wages in the tech field. I have been there and seen that

    Problem is, even if you didn't let these folks live here, American business would outsource to foreign firms that would allow their lower paid works to telecommute.

    At least the money is kept here. (A good deal of it at least).

    Parent

    Many of the H1's are not in manufacturing (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    but rather in R&SD and engineering type stuff that's hard to effectively outsource even with all the gadets we have today.

    Plus, as I noted, I have been there and seen that. More people in will mean lower wages.

    Parent

    Boehner Looks like he hasn't slept (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    and might have already found the Scotch.  He looks very unhappy.  Vague threats.  He looked to tired to hyperventilate.

    enjoy that congressional majority John! (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    Hope he has his scotch on an automatic home delivery account.

    Parent
    Yup... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    ...he's the dad who fought tooth and nail to get custody and is suddenly realizing that taking care of children is a lot of GD work and they tend to throw tantrums when they don't get what they want.

    Parent
    Seeing the reaction of people effected (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:33:30 AM EST
    is wonderful.  And imagining the sour faced old white people growling and throwing things at the TV is almost as good.

    Phyliss (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:00:24 AM EST
    Schafly is probably having a nervous breakdown as we speak.

    Parent
    This is so minor I was wondering why he even (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    needed to announce it - except for its value as a punch in the face to the GOP. They will (are) look(ing) ridiculous getting exercised over it.

    Ah, the WH needs to be fact checked (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    Link

    If by fact-checked (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    you mean, left out dubious RW talking points, I suppose you're technically correct, but that's about it.

    Yeah, because Pedro from Jalisco, Mexico doesn't have to worry about la migra, he's going to waltz into a MickeyD's or a Wal-Mart, and take a well-paying job away from some unlucky American citizen.

    Parent

    While I am glad (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:08:27 AM EST
    that this important issue is being addressed, I cannot help but notice that attention is constantly being diverted from the war we are waging in Iraq and Syria.

    The extent to which we and now France are being put in imminent danger merits, to me at least, much more attention from the media, and much more disclosure - including prime time addresses by the President - than we've been getting.

    And, when it comes to this immigration exercise, the proposed reforms are indeed modest, and probably revokable by the new republican congress.

    So the whole thing seems really tepid to me, while on the back burner, the war pot is boiling over.

    I would say... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    the imminent danger to 5 million of our neighbors that has been alleviated, albeit possibly only temporarily, was a far greater danger to America and our way of life than anything popping in the ME quagmire.

    As long as you ain't in the military that is.

    Parent

    From you (none / 0) (#13)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    to God's ear...

    But as far as comparing dangers...
    Those ISISians are calling for locals - our locals - to start killing and bombing and the rest.

    I think of those charming boys in Boston and their fking pressure cooker and the damage they did.

    That, multiplied... well - I don't like to contemplate it.

    Comparing levels of danger - not very pleasant I'll admit.
    But I'll also admit that I consider the attention this immigration issue is currently receiving seems to me to dwarf the attention given to sending us to war - endangering our military as you noted, endangering the civilian populations of Iraq and Syria, and the bonus of putting us - all of us - documented and undocumented - squarely in the crosshairs of a bunch of amoral fanatics @$300,000 AN HOUR.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...

    Parent

    I'm not too concerned... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    about our youth heeding the call of those ISIS lunatics in nay meaningful number...surely a few will, and it only takes one, but what's the difference between that and the nut who shoots up a school due to more generic mental illness or other gripe?  Inherent risk of a heavily armed modern world lentinel, I can't be losing sleep over that mess...is what it is till we evolve a lil' bit.

    And back to deportation...that's an authority-based threat to life and liberty and family, which always concerns me more than the threat of non-government entities like violent individuals or foreign based terrorist groups.  Because the former is done in our name and with our money.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    not absolutely sure which thing you are referring to which you label
    "done in our name and with our money." Deportation, or oiling and using the war machine. When it comes down to it, I guess both are.
    And neither of these things reflect my feelings whatsoever.

    I certainly see what you mean about lunatics shooting up a school, v/s some lunatic with a pressure cooker.

    The only thing I guess I could respond is that with the school shootings, we are letting slide a bunch of regulations that permit the selling of arms to idiots or anybody. We are doing nothing to resist an evil already in place.

    With the selling and promotion of war, we are now instigating something that need not be instigated - with the potential of slaughtering tens of thousands - depending on the weaponry.

    Bottom line: I admit to feeling that immigration, as important as it is as an issue, is being used to keep us engaged while they continue to slaughter and encourage slaughter while our backs are facing elsewhere.

    Parent

    As I was saying.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    Bottom line: I admit to feeling that immigration, as important as it is as an issue, is being used to keep us engaged while they continue to slaughter and encourage slaughter while our backs are facing elsewhere.

    From Today's NYTimes:

    In a Shift, Obama Extends U.S. Role in Afghan Combat
    The president's order would allow American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, sources said.

    We're being played - again.

    Parent

    The difference a day makes (more than song) (none / 0) (#21)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    I happened to hear a heartfelt comment from a Latino journalist reflecting on his joy & sadness and that stunning feeling of realizing that yesterday, as an undocumented individual, he could not do many things that he hoped to do/longed to do ... then, as he exclaimed, all of a sudden he could do those and was filled with the unexpected, unexplainable feeling of digesting that wanted change.

    A good thing, a thing long sought, an about-time thing...this immigration relief (and, I hope, only the opening to full reform.) Bittersweet, too; and, with powerful emotional waves.  But, really a good human thing to do.

    If we are taken by the difference in a day, think about the sweep and difference in real from two weeks ago.  A few weeks ago, the President was pronounced a lame duck by the media.  Let's see: (1) President Obama & China's President Xi reach a breakthrough agreement respecting climate change, wherein general caps are agreed to by dates certain -- a major diplomatic first as the Presidents formal agreement reverberates internationally; (2) The ACA continues apace in its second year of open-season (clean opening this time, & glitch-free) --as new reports show last year's enrollees satisfaction level meeting or surpassing the traditional satisfaction levels as to medical care in the country as well as insurer acceptance growing via their increased participation on the exchanges and premium-increase levels well below the double-digit increases of the past decade; and, (3) The Executive action announced yesterday by the President will have a direct, beneficial difference for an estimated 4.5 million human beings who are released from the shadows of existing in this country.  

    Legacy in the second term? Hey ... the three significant achievements referred to above would be a legacy any President would want to hold.

    An aside: With Mitch McConnell having lost the congratulatory-type headlines and having to deal with that governing reality, what plan for Immigration Reform is he planning to introduce after convening the new Congress in January?  Or, will he be lost in the "agenda" that Ga6th spells out at the top of this thread?  (Can't resist this: With so much time left, who will turn into that lame duck?)

    Republicans Hyperventilate Over Obama's Modest Immigration Reform | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment