Debate Over U.S Immigration Policy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-19/debate-over-us-immigration-policy
Immigration reform activists are applauding President Obama’s move to shield some younger immigrants from deportation. The decision allows immigrants younger than 30 who were brought to this country illegally by their parents to stay. GOP presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney criticized the decision. The Supreme Court is about to decide the constitutionality of an Arizona law tough on illegal immigrants, a decision that will likely have important implications for other states and and for national immigration policy. Please join to talk about the ongoing debate over illegal immigration.
Guests
Pamela Constable
Foreign correspondent at the Washington Post, author of "Fragments of Grace" and co-author of "A Nation of Enemies: Chile Under Pinochet."
Steven Camarota
director of research, Center for Immigration Studies.
Angela Kelley
vice president for immigration policy and advocacy, Center for American Progress.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Yes, the executive branch can exercise prosecutorial discretion. No doubt. However, as I read it, the administartion is actually going further, as they will create (in 60 days) a process for those who are NOT in deportation proceedings to ask for prosecutorial discretion. I think that is going way too far-- particularly because when this "prosecutorial discretion" was first announced a year ago or so, a disqualification was that a person who intentionally put himself in deportation procedings to get this "benefit" would be excluded from the prosecutorial discretion. I don't think that part has any precendent or any law to back it up.
On a personal note. I came to the US from South America when I was 16 yo over 20 years ago, all by myself, not understanding a word of English. It was not easy, that is an understatement, but here I am a vetaran, a citizen, and a professional. Just remember: the way to hell was paved with good intentions. This really takes away the responsibility from the parents who bring children to the US like me, with no plan, no idea of the injustices their children will suffer, no idea on how to fix it, "hoping" for the best, or worse, hoping that somebody else will fix it.
folks, we are talking about human beings - not aliens, human beings and their quest for survival through hard work... be kind. i am confident that 98% of you had someone in your past with the same motivations as these new immigrants. what is illegal today was legal yesterday and who knows what it will be tomorrow. be kind, be humane...
Not sure if this is a clever move by the president or not. I am a latino, and prior to this, I was going to vote for him, but I am not sure now. Somebody might disagree, but as I see it, most voting latinos care little about immigration.
Something I notice no one mentions is the cost. It costs an average of $9,000 or more thosand a year to educate a child. The average hispanic, including illegal immigrants has three children. If an illegal immigrant has three children costing $27,000 a year, who is paying for this. Is this why American schools are overcrowded and so poor. I notice in my city that most people do not send their kids to public school. The public schools are majority hispanic and provide poor educations. How did this come to be. It was not so 30 years ago. THis is not a natural demographic shift with the native hispanic pop. This is mostly due to illegal immigrants and the children they either bring here or have here. The public educat sys is overburdened not just by the numbers but by teaching them english and bringing them up to par. This has been the most detrimental of all the impacts of illegal immigration. Have friend in Dallas Texas, which has a Parkland hosp for poor. Thousands of babies born to illegals. Dallas taxpayers get to pay the delivery bills. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20100807-Across-Texas-60-...
Most of the comments I've read and almost all of the media controlled dialogue about this issue does not recognize the reality of the longstanding historical grossly unequal relationship between the people of United States and the people of Mexico under which Mexicans who have fed and served us for generations and made our food cheaper than it is for most of the world, were committing crimes. "Ilegal immigation" was allowed and permitted by law and practice until ignorance, fear, loathing, hatred, and harder economic times have so called patriots wanting to punish American children because their parents did not get in line in front a of a dooor that never opens to obtain documents that they could not and cannot get. How is this even close to fair?
Most of the comments I've read and almost all of the media controlled dialogue about this issue does not recognize the reality of the longstanding historical grossly unequal relationship between the people of United States and the people of Mexico under which Mexicans who have fed and served us for generations and made our food cheaper than it is for most of the world, were committing crimes. "Ilegal immigation" was allowed and permitted by law and practice until ignorance, fear, loathing, hatred, and harder economic times have so called patriots wanting to punish American children because their parents did not get in line in front a of a dooor that never opens to obtain documents that they could not and cannot get. How is this even close to fair?
Huge numbers have gone home already. Plus the movement on the border has stopped as well look at the NUMBERS. The problem is illegals who have lived in the US their whole life. We have been deporting kids who came to the US when they were one and don't even speak Spanish.
Mr Camarota used the perjorative term "illegals" to describe these children. He represents an organization dedicated to persecuting undocumented workers who "shouldn"t be here".
As the mother of a son who is currently on a long waiting list to be able to come to the U.S as a permanent resident to join our family, it bothers me that those parents like myself, who want to do things legally and abide by the laws, even if that means, being far apart from our son or daughter and sacrificing a life with them, are also, not taken into account.
We need an immigration overhaul to reform these laws that are outdated and do not provide the support to the nation's cuurent situation.
As much as I feel for these children or young adults , who by no fault of their own were brought into this country, as a parent of someone who might have found himself in a similar situation, I honestly believe, parents have to make educated choices regarding their children and not expext the governement to bail them out.
Part One
Ah, I see the conclusory utterances (claims boldly made without either fact or reason to support them) are flying fast and furious today.
To Patsy Nomore (writing on June 18, 2012 @ 11:57 am): Care to explain what’s wrong with Marbury v. Madison? The concept of judicial review it announced came straight out of the Constitution, and was in complete accordance with the expressed intent and expectations of the Founders. (For example: see Federalist Papers numbers 22, 78, 80, and 81.) And merely because you disagree with a decision, merely because it may truly be wrong, doesn’t constitute a violation of the Justices’ oath. They are charged with interpreting and applying the law according to the text, history, and their own judgment, not yours!
To Teece Bowman (writing on June 18, 2012 @ 1:20 pm): Care to explain what Capitalism or money has to do with any of this? There are corporations and “big-moneyed” interests that oppose deportations, and favor things like the DREAM Act, while there are labor unions which take the opposite view (and want all illegals deported to make more jobs available for legally resident workers and citizens).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
To Arkus Duntov (writing on June 19, 2012 @ 9:01 am): Politics is involved in the immigration debate? I’m shocked, shocked I say! (Next you’ll tell me there’s gambling at Rick’s.) The thing is, both sides are guilty of it. Case in point: Arizona’s SB1070. Governor Brewer only “discovered” that issue, and expressed support for the measure, when she was behind (dead last in fact) in the polls before the Republican primary for her re-election. The result? She went from dead last to winning the primary (and the eventual election). But I’m sure principle, not politics, was the sole factor in her championing the measure. (And if you believe that, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you - cheap!) Obviously, Romney is also playing politics with this issue, he’s just not able to do it as forthrightly as the President, since he’s trying to straddle the need to placate his right-wing, while clawing his way back to the “center”. Don’t worry, though, I’m sure Mr. Etch-A-Sketch counts on all of us forgetting his various views on the issue, and not bothering to demand a specific statement of how he’d handle this.
To all of you: It’s wonderful how you’re all able to provide “informed” Comments on this story before it even aired! There’s nothing quite like mindless ideology on display, is there?
Arkus Duntov on June 19, 2012 @ 10:53 am wrote: “What gives this president or any president the right to choose which laws he will enforce?”
It’s called “prosecutorial discretion” or “executive discretion”, and it happens all the time. Examples? When that cop “let you off with a warning” instead of a ticket. When the D.A. decides to plea bargain a case, or decides not to prosecute at all, because there are far graver crimes to expend his resources (and the courts’) on.
However, I also question whether the President has the legal authority to create this policy, and I’d like to see a fuller discussion of that issue. But spare me Republi-Con hypocrisy. When Reagan and Bush the Second were busy violating the Constitution (Iran-Contra, the secret warrantless wiretaps, for example) all I heard from “your side” was loud cheering!
WestStrobe on June 19, 2012 @ 11:28 am wrote: “Something I notice no one mentions is the cost. It costs an average of $9,000 or more thosand a year to educate a child. The average hispanic, including illegal immigrants has three children. If an illegal immigrant has three children costing $27,000 a year, who is paying for this. Is this why American schools are overcrowded and so poor.”
Of course not. Everyone knows (at least everyone on the “right” side) that our schools declined once that liberal, socialist, communist, progressive, traitorous Supreme Court decided that the “darkies” deserved equal education along side the vastly superior (and purer) whites. Allowing the “less darkies” in is only another step down the “slippery slope” to ruin.
P.S. - The above is known as sarcasm!
"Jean wrote:
When will the migration of folks from California and Nevada (areas of high unemployment) to Georgia, Mississippi, etc. to pick produce on a piece work scale start?
June 19, 2012 - 10:41 am"
When the economy began to tank and the il/legal California Mexicans lost their construction jobs and had to go back to picking tomatos, there were plenty of hands available for farm work.
As the Economy continues down, I suppose some will move East (Except for Alabama).
Some years ago, there was a (Florida?) tomato picker strike. They were being paid $0.01 per pound to pick tomatos!!! I think they got a small raise, possibly under some pressure from McDonalds under pressure from the bleeding heart Liberals.
Peaches require planting trees, tending them for years until they are ready to bear fruit. Then constantly prune, spray and pick from ladders.
One can buy Peaches for $1.00 or so per Pound Retail.
Throw a rotten tomato on the ground and nearly every seed will germinate. Almost no pests or diseases bother them, just a little Nitrogen and possibly Magnesium and reach down and pick nearly a bucket ($100.00 to $200.00 worth Retail) from each plant.
One can buy tomatos for $2.50 to $4.00 per pound
Economics!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Arkus Duntov wrote:
The emotional aspect of the conversation is irrelevant. Is our president a King or the Constitutionally bound president of the United States. What gives this president or any president the right to choose which laws he will enforce? This might have been a clever move for reelection purposes but if this was for the "greater good" then he should have worked hard and produced a narrow piece of legislation to enact this change of immigration policy through Congress. The "dream Act" was a much broader piece of legislation so this latest political ploy cannot be compared to it.
June 19, 2012 - 10:53 am"
Ever hear of Signing Statements, Stoopid??
You should have, the Host brought it up when the Right-Wing Jack in the Box Halfwit started his pitiful, but angry Lament.
You Refusniks got a hellava lotta nerve complaining anyhow. Like the Rightie Girls used to say,"Love it or Leave it".
KMAYDSOB.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
To mchaun (writing on June 19, 2012 @ 2:14 pm):
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about, or how it really relates to this issue. (And I doubt tomatoes are as hardy as you seem to think.) But as far as Georgia’s peaches are concerned, there were indications that its “get tough” approach to illegal immigration (courtesy of brain dead conservatives) was having a devastating effect on that industry, even before the law went into effect!
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/52381/
Economics indeed.
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
WestStrobe on June 19, 2012 @ 11:28 am wrote: “Something I notice no one mentions is the cost. It costs an average of $9,000 or more thosand a year to educate a child. The average hispanic, including illegal immigrants has three children. If an illegal immigrant has three children costing $27,000 a year, who is paying for this. Is this why American schools are overcrowded and so poor.”
Of course not. Everyone knows (at least everyone on the “right” side) that our schools declined once that liberal, socialist, communist, progressive, traitorous Supreme Court decided that the “darkies” deserved equal education along side the vastly superior (and purer) whites. Allowing the “less darkies” in is only another step down the “slippery slope” to ruin.
P.S. - The above is known as sarcasm!
June 19, 2012 - 1:50 pm"
Listen Shrudlu-
First, those "darkies" are still not getting the equal education they deserve. (That's not sarcasm)
Second, most of the "darkies" didn't sneak in illegally, looking for a better life for their Children, they were brought here in chains. Poor comparison. (That's not sarcasm)
Third, perhaps you have been reading about the Zionists expelling undocumented Black Aficans, perhaps you have something to add to that discussion? (That's not sarcasm)
Fourth, before the Zionists were expelling Black Africans, they were deporting the Children born of Guest Workers even though, I assume, they were Israeli Citizens.(That's not sarcasm)
How nice of them to cheerfully grant Citizenship to the Brooklyn S_it and Murderers who flee there to escape their just punishment or cut down millions of the Palestinian's Olive and Fruit Trees and S_it and Pi_s in their wells!!(That's sarcasm)
Your Pal,
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
To mchaun (writing on June 19, 2012 @ 2:14 pm):
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about, or how it really relates to this issue. (And I doubt tomatoes are as hardy as you seem to think.) But as far as Georgia’s peaches are concerned, there were indications that its “get tough” approach to illegal immigration (courtesy of brain dead conservatives) was having a devastating effect on that industry, even before the law went into effect!
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/52381/
Economics indeed.
June 19, 2012 - 2:54 pm"
Listen Shrudlu- I’m not quite sure WTF you’re talking about either, or how it really relates to this issue.
Farm Labor is at one of the cornerstones of the Immigrant Question and I tried to point out the fallacy that (exploited ) immigrant labor lowers food prices.
"(And I doubt tomatoes are as hardy as you seem to think.)" Would you consider that a conclusional utterance or like me, call it talking out of ones AH?
You have had much of value to say in the past, but are getting to be a pain in the butt.
I suppose there is a Statute of Limitations on comments, how can we evaluate your belated comments out of context?
Your Pal,
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Doc Leakey found bones in the Olduvai Valley in Africa. Per various scientists, humans are traced back to a female humanoid in Africa.
By logical extension, we in the US are "African Americans", along with Canadiens, Mexicans, central and south America. So-called "native" Americans walked, swam, canoed, etc. in waves before most europeans (Irish monks and vikings came over and left at various times).
The discussion about "legal" vs "illegal" immigrants is pure TIMING - a matter of who was deciding and when decisions were/are made. Europeans at various times were "illegal" or cerrtainly undesirable. Our celtic forebears were called "shanty Irish" and worse; Italians, Spanish, Germans, French, Africans, Asians of nation all have been discriminated against, murdered, incarcerated, deported, and despised at one time or another.
If children of slaves and indentured servants were born/brought without participating in the travel arrangements, how is that any different REALLY than immigrant kids brought by their parents? It's the convenience of timing alone - that conservatives would be adversely impacted in elections.
Regarding wage differences for who would/wouldn't do certain jobs, the facts really support that geographic availability is THE primary factor: employers along the borders are accustomed to large numbers of non-US workers, paying greatly lowered wages, NO benefits, without spending a farthing on documentation. Check out the Dust Bowl era for similar circumstances - lots of workers accepting slave wages due to geographic differences (ala Grapes of Wrath).
My point is that the whole discussion is really about who benefits/loses advantages of the immigrants - NOT true "legality" at all.
P.S. I don't buy the mantra that some Americans have quit looking for work - NObody that needs income EVER quits looking; they find SOMEthing else to get by - it's the American Way.
Here is my guest column in the Ft. Payne TJ, Dekalb County, Alabama paper the day Governor Bentley was to speak at a Tea Party Ralley in town.
http://m.times-journal.com/mobile/opinion/article_40d948b8-b187-11e1-b6b...
.
Have Robert Parham of Ethicsdaily.com and Bishop Willimon on a panel soon to further discuss immigration. Willimon, the former Chaplain at Duke, for many years was a trustee of Wofford College, his alma mater, in the hometown of Trey Gowdy, Tea Party freshman sure to be rabid in the continuing conversation about immigration. Here's hoping NPR covers a likely panel at Wofford with Gowdy and Willimon.
I hoped somebody this morning would have mentioned Diane McWhorter's Sunday piece in the NY Times Juan Crow.
One footnote to my piece in the TJ. Ms. Barron mentioned there is a former wife of one time 2nd most powerful man in Alabama, state Senator Lowell Barron. Susan Barron does a grand job in community outreach to Hispanics as an administrator of a North Sand Mtn Bama juco.
Thought the DR program this morning was intense and I congratulate you for it....One more thought, Senator Shelby in his conversation with me said both parties are at fault and we have created a "monster" with the inadequacies of current policy. Will be interesting to see if he follows through with conversation with Diane McWhorter and Coach Nick Saban's wife on the current situation in light of the Mother Jones piece, the ed.com documentary, and this provocative conversation this morning on Drshow.
As added info to my linked column above, proud to say for two years in a row, the Collinsville Panther 1A soccer team has made semifinals in state competing with teams through 4A. Last year they made history as first all Hispanic team in a public school to get to that plateau; and then year they made a respectable 2-1 score in a loss against Mtn Brook, at home in Collinsville; MBrook one of the wealthiest school districts in the state. So all is not third world here.
Half of the top ten grads at Collinsville, my Mother's alma mater, were Hispanics this year; as was the Valedictorian and Salutotorian. in April 2006 at my invitation--I am not on staff at the school, just a member of the community--SCOTUS Hugo Black's grandson, Stephen, spoke at the school.
My apologies if I broached comment stream policy and etiquette with with added note.
To Monte Haun (writing on June 19, 2012 @ 3:34 pm):
PART ONE
Clearly, sir, you have no idea what the term sarcasm means.
I employed the phrase “darkies” (in quotes, you’ll notice, a further indication that I wasn’t serious and wasn’t endorsing the phrase) to counter WestStrobe’s ridiculous assertion that the (alleged) decline in our public schools is entirely, or even mainly, due to illegal immigration. I was pointing out how “conservatives” of another age offered equally mindless (and bigoted) arguments against Blacks.
(Plus, of course, I was doing a “rif” on the bigoted rhetoric employed against Hispanics, calling them “Browns”, by comparing that to the equally bigoted term “darkies” employed against Blacks. Hence my use of the term “less darkies”.)
As to whether Blacks (or anyone) actually receive equal treatment today - well, we could have a grand discussion about it, but it would be way off topic. Suffice to say, things are far better post-Brown v. Board of Education than they were before.
Nor does the fact the Blacks were originally brought here as slaves change or undercut the comparison. I don’t know too many Blacks today who were brought here as slaves, but (to repeat myself) the same bigoted and ignorant comments made against Hispanics by the anti-immigrant crowd are also made against Blacks. (Think: “welfare queen”.) That no surprise. The rhetoric of prejudice never changes, only the target. Jews, then Blacks, now Hispanics (to name a few examples).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Speaking of which, your Anti-Semitism is showing. (Sorry, I should speak “Euphemism” and say Anti-Zionism). What expulsion are you talking about? A few facts, details, and proof please. In case you’ve forgotten Israel flew the “Black Jews” from Ethiopia to Zion. In your own words, that’s completely different from either the Black or Hispanic experience in this country. (Ditto for your remarks about “guest workers”, and your presumption about what creates Israeli citizenship. Why not research that first, instead of jumping to conclusions?) As for Israel and the Palestinians - that’s so far off topic you’ve fallen off the edge of the Earth!
(Of course, the dirty little secret about “illegal immigration” is that most of it comes from people who arrive here legally, and then overstay their visas. And the majority of them aren’t Hispanic. Funny, isn’t it, how we only hear Republi-Cons complain about “illegals” from “south of the border”!)
Sorry, but anyone, left, right, or center, who can indulge in such a display of conclusory utterances backed only by ideology (or worse) can never be a “Pal” of mine!
And that’s not sarcasm.
To Monte Haun (writing on June 19, 2012 @ 3:34 pm):
Wow! I really must have struck a nerve there. First you post a tirade about a Comment that wasn’t even addressed to you, now you’re all worked up over tomatoes!
I’m afraid (in the words of Thomas Raith) your explanation isn’t one. If, as you claim, you were trying to point out the fallacy regarding an alleged connection immigrant labor and food prices, you utterly failed to do so. Hence, my remark that I had no idea what you were talking about! (That was an invitation for you to explain yourself more clearly. Too bad you failed.)
As for the hardiness of tomatoes - it would be a “conclusory utterance” if I had actually stated a conclusion (like “tomatoes aren’t hardy at all”). All I did was express my doubts about it. (Again, another invitation for you to clarify your statement, and demonstrate its relevance. One which you again failed to accept.)
As for evaluating my “belated” comments - sorry if I get NPR shows a few hours later here in Arizona than others do “back East”. Also, I know of no “Statute of Limitations” for posting Comments here. And since I try to indicate the context of my remarks, such as by giving the date and time of what I’m replying to, along with relevant quotations most of the time, I’d say my Comments are always in context. The same can’t be said for your Anti-Semitic (sorry, “anti-zionist”) screed.
And coming from you, I’d say being called a “pain in the butt” is a compliment. Thank you very much!
Sorry I missed this one. So many goofy posts to reply to and now the folks making them have moved on ... too bad.
Anyway, most Americans are fair minded and compassionate, ESPECIALLY in the modern America of the 20th and 21st centuries. That has to be taken as a given. It's why we've been in Bosnia, Libia, and other places. It's why we came to the defense of Europe in WWI and WWII. For anyone who would like to refute that, first study American history, THEN get back to me, because if you think otherwise, you are simply ignorant. Americans are the most generous people in history.
With that as a given, the President's order, which I believe was based in politics, might be a good thing if enacted legally by Congress, but that will be decided in the courts.
The main problem I have with it is it doesn't actually solve anything (which makes it clear to me that it was politically motivated). In fact no amnesty, no policy, no nothing solves anything until you build the wall.
Don't tell me you can't physically do it. That is false. If it we can build an interstate highway system of nearly 50,000 miles, we can build a double fence along less than 2000 miles of border. Once you stop the bleeding you can begin to address the folks that are already here in a generous way. I know that will happen because, remember, Americans are fair minded and compassionate. Otherwise, you might as well forget border control completely and just let everybody in.
ecgberht:
All too typical snotty crack about goofy posts - takes one to know one.
2000 mile fence...... what about nuking the border or interlaced drones or underground electric weirs? And don't forget the Candian border either. And how about electrified nets along the shoreline and refurbished river gunboats from 'Nam to patrol rivers and the ocean? And is the 2K fence designed to keep people out, or keep "the inmates" locked in? How much more cash do you tax-and-spend types want to apply to this canard?
News Flash: The number of illegals has been going down - "self deportation", normal attrition, an overall better policy stance, and twice the border enforcement of the W admin. Fact is that Obama has been doing a better job than the cookie cutter conservatives. That also makes comments about political motivation rather contradictory. i.e. why increase border control and relax deportation?
And what is Romney's response to the "new" policy? ....... the equivalent of "...DUH...".
LibVet, thanks for the thoughtful reply!
"All too typical snotty crack about goofy posts "
LibVet, if you consider, "I believe the T-Party 5 currently serving on the SCOTUS are corrupt.... However,they really are in step with the history of the high court,when 90% of their rulings are incorrect."
-or-
"This is what you get when you combine capitalism with government. The best country money can buy"
anything but "goofy", then so be it. By the way, "what about nuking the border or interlaced drones or underground electric weirs" also qualifies, although it is additionally a "strawman" as are electrified nets and gunboats, blah, blah, blah, all of which, unless I missed something, NO ONE is suggesting.
"is that Obama has been doing a better job than the cookie cutter conservatives. "
Actually, Obama has been doing almost nothing. His perpetually bad economy has been doing it for him as some posters have pointed out. Some day that economy will turn around and the tide will start to turn in again.
In fact, you have no solutions, LibVet. Although why should you when you don't recognize that there is a problem. Your only thing is some people believe that, as a nation of laws, whose Constitution says that it is the Federal Government's job to control its borders, we ought to do just that, and because the people against whom we're controlling the borders happen to have brown skin, then those who seek to support those laws must be hated and ridiculed.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
Eggbert,
Why say we have no solutions? Isn't the conservative mantra to "let the free market" take care of it? Why not let your beloved capitalism-solves-everything take its course? Be consistent. The market is YOUR Swiss Army knife tool for everything, right? Why choose government (ala Obama) to solve immigration? Why would you trust the government YOU hate to solve ANY problem?
Fact is that you guys want government just as much or more than liberals......you just want to use it against your fellow citizens and to serve the robber barons of the top one percent (the ones that created ALL our troubles).
While I personally would not grade SCOTUS at 90% bad judgements, I fully agree with the sentiment that their Citizens United decision and an earlier one that allowed Boston to steamroll local property owners were way off base and subservient to corporate interests. These five would have chosen business owners over minorities back in the sixties.......and we would still have rampant segregation.
THAT sums it up.
Hope you hang around to see this, LibVet and will continue the discussion.
LibVet wrote:
"Why say we have no solutions? Isn't the conservative mantra to "let the free market" take care of it? ... Why would you trust the government YOU hate to solve ANY problem?"
LibVet, you have conflated a Constitutional requirement with free market principles. It is a Constitutional requirement that the Federal Government protect the borders.
"Fact is that you guys want government just as much or more than liberals......you just want to use it against your fellow citizens and to serve the robber barons of the top one percent (the ones that created ALL our troubles)."
No, actually we just want the FG to do what is Constitutionally required of it and no more. Read Article 1, Section 8 and it will tell you what those things are. Everything else, the states and the people should do for themselves. And I'm not going to re-argue "the ones that created ALL our troubles". "Everybody should own a house" (a Democrat pricincple) and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (a Republican idea) is what created "All our troubles". That is just a fact.
"While I personally would not grade SCOTUS at 90% bad judgements, I fully agree with the sentiment that their Citizens United decision"
Would love to discuss this one with you because I don't think any other position than the one SCOTUS took is defensible under the Constitution. Tried to with another poster but she just got snippy and stormed off.
"and an earlier one that allowed Boston to steamroll local property owners were way off base and subservient to corporate interests."
You are right on there. Property owners' Constitutional rights were violated.
"These five would have chosen business owners over minorities back in the sixties.......and we would still have rampant segregation."
Including Justice Thomas?! Completely unfair.
E:
Obviously the Pres is "protecting the borders" since the stats bear out that deportations are up and boots on the ground are double the W era. And yes I did conflate the free market concept with personal rights........BECAUSE conservatives use the free market to solve all problems. Be consistent or come out and admit that government does have a reasonable role in our lives. You cannot have it both ways. Laws = government, more laws = more government. Conservatives cannot rationally beat liberals over the head with our own Constitution and then hide behind its literal words to block liberal interpreters.
Yes Thomas would have to decide whether he is to stick to stoic conservative backing of business interests or back individual rights. Completely fair assessment of the principles. And consistent.
Even conservatives (real ones not just those who want to win at all costs) have admitted that Citizens United was a s-t-r-e-t-c-h decision at best. Bought and paid for......like the health care decision soon to be made (Thomas' wife being a leading tea party opponent of the AHA and a major recipient of $$$$$$$ as such an opponent).