Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RVGRINGO

Good news!

Recommended Posts

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in the recent past there was another thread about illegal immigration..

at that time it prompted me to do some Google research.. about time I had gathered

my info, that particular thread got closed. .

I am not stating a position one way or the other by Obama's action, just want to provide info about illegal immigration and what part Mexicans are involved with the numbers.

However, the topic of immigration has come up again and I think part of what I discovered is applicable to this new thread. Some of the info found relates to current date numbers,

but I believe that it is just a continuation of what has been happening in the past decade or more,

and this applies to the minors/children of those illegals.

We seem to focus on Mexicans as being the greatest “ offenders “ of US illegal immigration.

I remember many years ago [ maybe 15 - 20 years ago ] there was a piece on “ 60 Minutes” discussing this very topic – at that time that TV episode focused on the Illegals who arrive

in NYC airports with a temp. Visa and then they sort of disappeared into the crowds,

never following through on the legal process of citizenship.

I think as citizens of the world, we sometimes look at things/ problems in such a narrow manner, than we do not consider other aspects. This topic may be a lightening rod

of emotion, politic, and etc.. What I found in my research was interesting, and somewhat enlightening as well.

The precise number of illegals entering the United States and the exact rate at which

they cross US borders are unknown. Official government numbers are often hard

to come by, not necessarily current and routinely “sanitized”.

It also should be noted that whatever figures quoted does not include the millions

who the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly called the Government Accounting Office) say enter legally on temporary visas BUT continued to stay after their visas expire.

Many individuals from foreign countries are issued temporary work and student visas.

Those who fail to return home after the visa expires become illegal aliens.

Visa overstays account for a sizeable number of illegal aliens in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates the resident over- stay population

as of January 2000 at 2.3 million, not including short-term overstays.

A more recent Department of Homeland Security estimate placed the January 2000

resident over-stay population at one-third of 7 million illegal immigrants, or 2.3 million.

Between October 2009 and March 2011, the Border Patrol detained at least 2,600 illegal immigrants from India, a dramatic rise over the typical 150 to 300 arrests per year.

The influx had been so pronounced that in May, Homeland Security told a Senate committee

that at some point this year, Indians will account for about 1 in 3 non-Mexican illegal

immigrants caught in Texas.

Until just recently El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras did not require visas for
Indians entering their country , meaning smugglers can shift routes and use those
countries as alternate jumping-off points for the journey north. Between October 2009
and March 2011, the Border Patrol detained at least 2,600 illegal immigrants from India, a dramatic rise over the typical 150 to 300 arrests per year.

In the last year, the authorities say, smugglers have increasingly capitalized on a much

more lucrative business — trafficking Chinese citizens into the United States.

The number of Chinese immigrants arrested while illegally crossing the border into Arizona

through the busiest smuggling corridor in the United States increased tenfold in the last

fiscal year, according to the United States Border Patrol in Tucson.

In fiscal 2009, 332 Chinese immigrants were caught in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector,

up from 30 the previous year, Border Patrol figures showed. And in what could be a sign

of a record-breaking pace for this year, agents in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector

arrested 281 Chinese immigrants from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, the first quarter of the current fiscal year.

The most common route : immigrants fly from Beijing to Rome, board a plane to Caracas, Venezuela, fly to Mexico City and work their way up to the northern border and into the United States. In another, they travel to Cuba, fly to the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico and travel north into the United States.

Once immigrants are in Mexico, crossing into the Tucson area is the route of choice because the smuggling infrastructure is already in place.

The Border Patrol’s Tucson sector does not normally track arrests of illegal immigrants by

country because of the disparity of the figures between Mexico and other nations.

In 2009, 11,628 of the Tucson sector’s, 241,673 arrests were non-Mexican — nearly 5 percent, a Border Patrol spokesman said.

Only when the sector noticed the influx [ Chinese, of non-Mexican illegals ] did it tally the number

of Chinese entering in recent years. After decades of attempting to dam the flow of Mexican immigrants crossing into the United States illegally, federal agents finally recognized a new crisis is emerging along the southern border .

Non-Mexicans are spilling over the border in record numbers with some from countries with

terrorist ties - and most are set free soon after being captured. The number of non-Mexican apprehensions has far outpaced last year's total in just eight months.

And while they are still a relatively small percentage compared with the number of illegal Mexicans, critics say the federal government's policy in dealing with them is dangerous.

Because OTMs, or "Other Than Mexicans" as the Border Patrol classifies them, must

be returned to their country of origin, they cannot be simply sent back across the southern border,

as most Mexicans are. Under US law, they must be detained (in the US) pending a deportation hearing.

The problem is, immigration detention centers are packed, so most OTMs are given a court summons and told to return in three months. A full 85 percent don't [return to court ] .

Sorry this is such a long note..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More facts:

Mitigation from Mexico has dropped to almost zero since 2009:

Migration-WEB-preview.gif

State taxes paid by illegals:

Tenstatesthemosttaxesfromillegals.jpg

Department of Homeland Security report:

http://www.dhs.gov/x...ill_pe_2009.pdf

Between January 2008 and January 2009, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States decreased seven percent from 11.6 million to 10.8 million.

Between 2000 and 2009, the unauthorized population grew by 27 percent. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2009, 63 percent entered before 2000, and 62 percent were from Mexico.
Between January 2008 and January 2009, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States decreased seven percent from 11.6 million to 10.8 million.

illegalimmigrantcountryoforigin.jpg

Illegalimmigrationaageandgender.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good information in these last two posts. It makes a strong case for finding a way to normalize the situation of current undocumented immigrants, particularly the young who did not have a say so in entering the U.S. The demographics of Mexico are changing very rapidly, overall family size is very near replacement size. Mexican family size has decreased drastically, with profound implications for both countries.

It makes no case for ignoring the rule of law and the Constitution and having this or any other POTUS of any political stripe writing his own laws. That path leads to dictatorship and repression. When one looks at the U.S. government today and its heavy handedness in so many areas, most of which is of questionable legality, I would hope that one would grasp the bigger picture here and not want to encourage further watering down of the Constitution and the rule of law.

You may like the current POTUS and you may also like this suspiciously belated re-writing of the immigration law. However, you may not like at all if someone else comes along and uses the same policy to enact laws without benefit of legislation that you don't like at all. Just keep in mind how the previous POTUS use the same usurpation of power to do things you didn't like.

This is somewhat akin to the old saw about those who live by the sword dying by same.

Also, I just don't see that any real, concerted effort has been made here to enact this by due process. One would certainly think it would have been much easier to do so in 2009, I am concerned that the decision was made to use this for political purposes and to scapegoat the Congress rather than really try to work together to pass a change in the law. I didn't see a lot of the "bully pulpit" for example, when the Dream Act was being debated. Where was the leadership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PV: judge on fox- saw video on you tube, maybe 6 months ago. it was a news broadcast from another station reporting about the judge losing his job. cant remember the date of the vid posting either. i think they discussed the issues which led to the decision to terminate him. i remember it, he spoke of war, the constitution, corporations. very powerful, more than ever. i dont know if he is back. (dont follow TV broadcasts that often). as for GRIFFIN or who ever: thats is one brilliant man, the judge. i am sure he has done very well for himself w/appearances, maybe he wrote a book. as for EVERYONE ELSE: you cant judge someone by the news station they choose. that is like my computer trying to figure out which pop up ads apply to me. i get fast food ads from guad, & vocational schools (fox type of person)? big stretch from the four seasons/sotheby's ads. (NYtimes person)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no case for ignoring the rule of law and the Constitution and having this or any other POTUS of any political stripe writing his own laws. That path leads to dictatorship and repression. When one looks at the U.S. government today and its heavy handedness in so many areas, most of which is of questionable legality, I would hope that one would grasp the bigger picture here and not want to encourage further watering down of the Constitution and the rule of law.

You may like the current POTUS and you may also like this suspiciously belated re-writing of the immigration law. However, you may not like at all if someone else comes along and uses the same policy to enact laws without benefit of legislation that you don't like at all. Just keep in mind how the previous POTUS use the same usurpation of power to do things you didn't like.

You did notice that no one in Congress has said a suit will be filed to force POTUS to follow the law. The reason is no suit will be filed is that POTUS is acting within his discretion. He is following the law. He has the authority to tell Justice who to deport. If he doesn't want Justice to spend time deporting law abiding aliens under the age of 30, who have lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years, and entered as children, he has the right to tell Justice to give those people 2 year visas.

Not agreeing with what POTUS does not make it illegal. Funny, that when he order an invasion of Pakistan to kill bin Laden, no one on the Right demanded POTUS be charged with violating any laws then or maybe they did. It is normal for the Right to think Obama is always a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, a legislator from Iowa is going to file suit. I expect more to follow. Don't confuse apples and oranges, Pakistan was obviously within his authority. This is a material change to the law. It will be tested in the courts.

http://politicaltick...n-announcement/

It is normal for the Right to think Obama is always a criminal.

Oh for sure. Of course, the "left" didn't engage in the same behavior when Bush was in office, right?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An American can jump on the bus and ride into Mexico any day they want and stay 6 months, leave and come back on next bus or walk in. Many expats come here and work illegally, collect rent and pay no taxes or are tenants and do not keep the tax portion for Hacienda all the while often being a part of "socialized" medicine. geesh

And, NOB fruits and vegetables are less as some poor Mexican worked for less than a fair wage or worked in a slaughter house while those NOB made a profit and others pay a little less for their food thanks to a Mexican taking it on the chin to feed his family in Mexico. You want your roof reshingled, a ditch dug, motel rooms cleaned, gardener, maid etc in the US... nearly all mexicans and many illegal.

most everything in the US is based on greed and Mexicans unfortunately enable this to happen through their need to survive.

Good post RV, thanks and welcome back!

Great post. Griffin I agree with your points as well, well said.

The topic of this thread was “Good News” and it certainly is that for the many young adults and children who, by no wrongdoing of their own, were brought to this country by their parents. I am an American and I value the laws of the land, but no law can foresee all possible actualities, and to say otherwise is to negate the need for common sense in any given law.

The perceived “concrete nature” of law is a myth. Laws are quite fluid and are always subject to new and alternate interpretations, to updating and complete repeal if deemed necessary by the political and social climate they are meant to govern. The President’s interpretation of this situation is valid in that as minors they did not break any laws.

Uprooting them now would be wholly unethical. If, on the other hand, they were deported shortly after coming here illegally it could be done without undue hardship to the children. The United States government shoulders some of the blame for not dealing with this in a timely fashion.

And for the scoffers who feel there should be no statue of limitations in such cases you might want to reconsider. Misplaced righteous indignation is comical in light of the fact that many current US citizens owe their residence in the US to one or more family members from past generations who came here with incomplete/lacking or questionable paperwork at best. Many Germans, English and Irish (among others) came to the US as illegal aliens.

My ex-wife’s family came legally to Canada from Ireland but one of them decided life would be better in the US and crossed the border illegally, this was over 100 years ago, does this make her illegal now? And where should she be deported to, Canada or Ireland perhaps? Sounds pretty ridiculous. Oh wait, if she wasnt deported was she given amnesty by default?

If possession really is 9/10ths of the law then this current blameless segment of society should be allowed to stay here as did many an illegal European many moons ago. In the grand scheme of things it is but one more hiccup in history’s long line of world migrations.

Relax…… sooner than not we will all be dead and buried and these peoples will have been absorbed into American society only to have it repeated X amount of years later here or someplace else down the road. There is nothing new under the sun.

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PV: youtube posted a news broadcast about the judge losing his job. cant remember when it was posted but i saw the vid w/in the last 6 months. also i remember the speech he gave which was very powerful. so good that they fired him. either he is back w/limitations or the website needs up dating. easy to check you tube. he does very well for himself w/ appearances. does not need to work as a sleezy lawyer. he is a brilliant man. so are some people who have looked @ fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes he was fired! there are numerous videos on youtube discussing the famous broadcast which was his last. the controversial segment is also there. i am surprised FOX news hired him, &let his stay as long as they did. no left wing oriented station would done that. maybe this is off topic, but we were discussing FOX. & the judge was top quality. all the good people get fired from major networks, then they do alternative. ok back to "dream act".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong, a legislator from Iowa is going to file suit. I expect more to follow. Don't confuse apples and oranges, Pakistan was obviously within his authority. This is a material change to the law. It will be tested in the courts. http://politicaltick...n-announcement/ Oh for sure. Of course, the "left" didn't engage in the same behavior when Bush was in office, right? LOL

King can threaten to sue but it would be rejected as frivolous. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Executive Branch has discretion in deportations. Obama has deported more people mostly criminals, than any previous Administration, but if Obama tells Justice don't waste your time deporting noncriminals, someone like King threatens suit. What are King's grounds and does he have standing? It would be a frivolous suit.

http://law.justia.co...700/658/117305/

Discretionary "deferred action," pursuant to the INS's unpublished O.I. 103.1(a)(1)(ii), advises district directors that deferred action status be granted in cases where "adverse action would be unconscionable because of the existence of appealing humanitarian factors." The district director denied the application and request. Zacharakis sought habeas corpus relief in the district court seeking release from confinement, stay of deportation, and review of his denial of deferred action.

http://www.mcclatchy...-executive.html

“To ameliorate a harsh and unjust outcome, the INS may decline to institute proceedings, terminate proceedings or decline to execute a final order of deportation,” Justice Antonin Scalia, quoting from another writer, added in a 1999 Supreme Court decision.
The prosecutorial discretion adopted by the Obama administration on Friday is sometimes called “deferred action.” Aldana said that this could be the largest-ever application of deferred action, if the estimates are correct that upwards of 800,000 illegal immigrants may benefit.
Deferred action status, also known as nonpriority status, has been described as "an informal administrative stay of deportation ... having no effect on an alien's adjudication as deportable but potentially leading to an extended stay in this country." Wan Chung Wen v. Ferro, 543 F.Supp. 1016, 1017 (W.D.N.Y.1982). It is, in essence, a "reprieve" from deportation--an administrative decision by the INS to take no action against an otherwise deportable alien. See Pasquini v. Morris, 700 F.2d 658, 661 (11th Cir.1983);
PV: youtube posted a news broadcast about the judge losing his job. cant remember when it was posted but i saw the vid w/in the last 6 months. also i remember the speech he gave which was very powerful. so good that they fired him. either he is back w/limitations or the website needs up dating. easy to check you tube. he does very well for himself w/ appearances. does not need to work as a sleezy lawyer. he is a brilliant man. so are some people who have looked @ fox.

Fox cancelled his show.

All judges are attorneys so are you saying he is sleazy because he is a lawyer?

http://en.wikipedia....drew_Napolitano

Prior to joining Fox as a news analyst, Napolitano was the presiding judge on the television show, Power of Attorney, in which people brought small-claims disputes to a televised courtroom. Differing from similar formats, the plaintiffs and defendants were represented "pro bono" by famous attorneys. The show ran in syndication during the 2000–2001 season.

http://www.conservap...drew_Napolitano

He spent twelve years in private law practice, and in 1984 became an adjunct (that is, part-time) professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall University School of Law. In 1987 he was appointed as a New Jersey Superior Court judge. He served on this court for eight years, the youngest life-tenured jurist in the history of that court, while continuing his adjunct professorship.
In 1995, he retired from the bench and returned to the private practice of law. In that same year he also began his present career in broadcasting, chiefly in television. He worked first at CNBC and then became Senior Judicial Analyst at the Fox News Channel in 1998.
Manny wrote: he is a brilliant man. so are some people who have looked @ fox.

I guess first we need to define, "What is brilliant?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King is a U.S. Representative and vice chair of the House Immigration committee. He has standing. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, I wouldn't presume to know how the courts might rule. However, I don't believe this is prosecutorial discretion because they are basically exempting an entire class of people from the law, even though there is no provision for same.

You might find this interesting:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/09/obama_on_dream_act_cant_just_c.html

Obama on the DREAM Act: "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true."

I suspect your definition of "brilliant" coincides with your political views as does your definition of "frivilous."

Enough said, we'll see how this plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King is a U.S. Representative and vice chair of the House Immigration committee. He has standing. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, I wouldn't presume to know how the courts might rule. However, I don't believe this is prosecutorial discretion because they are basically exempting an entire class of people from the law, even though there is no provision for same.

You might find this interesting:

http://blogs.suntime...ant_just_c.html

I suspect your definition of "brilliant" coincides with your political views as does your definition of "frivilous."

Enough said, we'll see how this plays out.

Standing means the petitioner needs to prove a harm was done to the petitioner. It has nothing to do with King's Congressional position.

Standing:

The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and ( B) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.

Frivolous means a suit has no chance to win under the law. The Supreme Court has already stated that Justice has prosecutorial discretion. That means a suit over whether Justice has prosecutorial discretion would be frivolous.

In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. The term does not include cases that may be lost due to other matters not related to legal merit.

My definition of brilliant means someone with intelligence and insight. Frivolous in court is well defined as a petition that cannot win, not a petition that seems silly. I guess you think a frivolous suit is a suit you think is silly and standing means one's professional position.

As far as the Blog you cited, I cited Supreme Court decisions, not blogs. I wonder which is more authoritative? Once again, Obama did not change the law. Obama did not violate the law by ordering criminal illegals deported over noncriminal illegals, nor did he violate it by staying the deportation of certain illegals this time. He has that authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast forward to this possible scenario:

SJC upholds Obamacare Romney is elected POTUS Romney tells DOJ not to spend any money or time enforcing provisions of Obamacare, especially the requirement to purchase insurance

What will be the reaction of many who post on this board? Hmmmmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back to the OP ... sounds like a brilliant move esp when you read this:

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000009

I think Obama outsmarted the GOP on this and he got the jump on them. He took much of what Rubio was trying to implement and upped him. awesome!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Griffin, I simply corrected you when you said no one was going to file suit. You can cite all you want, but you aren't a court or I'll wager a Constitutional lawyer and neither am I. I found it interesting in the Politico article, which it doesn appear you read, that Constitutional experts from both sides of the political spectrum expressed serious misgivings about the Executive's authority to enact such a sweeping change to immigration law without virtue of legislation. And I also find it interesting that Mr. Obama, who claims also to be an expert on Constitutional law, several years ago stated unequivocally that he didn't feel he had the authority to implement the Dream Act, of which this was the major element, on his own. I notice you stayed far away from that one. :)

You keep making statements that indicate you know how courts are going to rule on this. Face it, you don't have a clue and neither do we. Try and not confuse your opinion with actual facts. Neither of us knows if a petition on this matter cannot win. Therefore, for you to brand it as frivilous is premature, putting it mildly.

And someone with intelligence and insight is someone who agrees with your somewhat left of center views, correct? Sorry, but I'll wait until the real experts and the courts have their say in the matter. Until then, we're just a couple of opinionated lay people expressing our views. I understand this, do you?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans can come here for 6 months any time they want and simply leave and return in minutes, all legal. Meanwhile, Mexicans are often fodder for American businesses and home owners to do the menial, unskilled jobs while risking their lives to get their. mmm sounds fair to me .. NOT.

4320 minutes to be exact---

unless something has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajijic, this is just more political opinion and from a very biased source at that. Keep that in mind. I'm not disputing whether something needs to be done for children who were turned into illegal immigrants by their parents, I'm questioning the Constitutional implications of a POTUS, any POTUS, who won't follow the process of law making mandated by the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4320 minutes to be exact---

unless something has changed.

Not true, literally in minutes... hand in your FMM walk out the door (maybe not even that) and walk up to the counter and get a new FMM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go Ajijic one better. I grew up in AZ. "Illegals" were winked at, at the border. Everyone wanted the cheap labor. The welcome mat was out big time for decades.

Now there's not enough work to go around, some are happy to screw these folks to the wall. I view it as one of the great historic examples of bait and switch.

Mexicans sure treat us in their country a whole lot better than we treat them in ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maincoons, threatening to file suit and doing so are two different things. Upon talking to lawyers, I doubt King will file suit. What is his standing? What harm has been done to him? Even Republicans know King shoots his mouth off and doesn't know what he is saying.

Obama has used his discretion to order Justice to spend its resources deporting criminal illegal immigrants and not illegals who are not criminals. How does that pose a harm to King? King will have a difficult time proving that he is personally injured by the action.

I read this: http://blogs.suntime...ant_just_c.html

Obama did not institute the DREAM Act. He has chosen not to deport illegals under 30, who entered as children, who are law abiding and to give them a two year Visa to work, to go to school or join the military. It is not a path to citizenship. It is not the DREAM Act. Justice has the authority to choose to deport harmful illegals over non-harmful illegals.

This is what I don't get, no matter how it is explained that POTUS has the discretion to choose to deport bad guys over good guys, people still don't get it. POTUS did not do anything illegal and SCOTUS has ruled that POTUS has this discretion. I think it boils down to a hatred of Obama and a criticism of anything he does that borders on crazy.

I bet I've personally filed more petitions in federal courts, including before SCOTUS, than you have and I bet I do know more law than do you. All law by the way is Constitutional law. If laws are not constitutional they are illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the signing of the order is timed more for Obama's G-20 meeting in Mexico than for the presidential election. I think it is something for Calderon. We'll see if the U.S. gets anything out of it from Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All law by the way is Constitutional law. If laws are not constitutional they are illegal.

Which we will soon find out as the SJC tells us whether it is constitutional to force someone to buy a product or service as Obamacare does.

As they say in Mexico, vamos a ver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingto...COdV_story.html

Why would this help Calderon?

BTW, did anyone notice that Nieto has taken on Columbia's top narco fighter as his chief security advisor? Pretty smart move IMO.

Calderon's a lame duck and his party is polling even behind the PRD in this election. Hard to see how anyone can help the PAN at this point. Election is less than two weeks away.

Nope, this is all about the U.S. election IMO. Just don't confuse it with compassion or actually caring about the young people. That would have been the case if this had been done in 2009, the year that Mr. Obama and his party had complete control of the government and could have properly legislated this change.

Now, it's just politics and nothing but politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingto...COdV_story.html

Nope, this is all about the U.S. election IMO. Just don't confuse it with compassion or actually caring about the young people. That would have been the case if this had been done in 2009, the year that Mr. Obama and his party had complete control of the government and could have properly legislated this change.

Please explain how the Democrats could have over-ridden a filibuster. McConnell, the Minority Leader said his only goal in the next four years was to defeat Obama. I'm sure what he meant by that is to denigrate and obstruct any legislation proposed by the president. I'm not saying that Obama didn't do this for political reasons, but if I remember correctly, in 2009 we had an economy on the brink of a meltdown and after that came the healthcare fiasco, then the debt ceiling crisis, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...