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.
Part I (yet again?!) And I write a lot?! I've refuted your 14 posts with 3!
"Go ahead, represent someone in court with your truly pathetic understanding of Law."
Have you gotten unilateral contracts straight yet, strudel? I've had to school you on that twice already! 'nuff said on this one.
"The Supreme Court hears many kinds of cases, some involving very narrow matters, some of broader interest"
So you agree with me.
Part II
"I’m not going to give you a seminar on this topic,"
Too late.
"Caio"
Your way of saying you're not going to defend your scurulous attacks and run away like the little girl you always turn out to be.
ecgberht:
Re: "SCOTUS hears individual cases, but it does not make narrow rulings.....has to consider the broader implications of its rulings." -
Make up your mind, be consistent; sometimes say the Constitution says A, B, C, NO MORE, and decry expanded interpretation; then you counter yourself to say SCOTUS must consider broader implications. Liberals want the "spirit of the law" followed; conservatives want only narrow, literal specifics. You cannot have it both ways just to serve your purposes - very much like free interpreters of the Bible vs strict/literal - EXCEPT the Constitution is a definition of government, NOT holy writ.
Re: "Oliver Stone wants to release a full length movie, the following month, through 20th Century, about George W" -
OK or not? I'd personally say that Ollie is beating a very dead horse; that boat left the dock long ago. I suspect he's interested in entertainment and profit not political capital - similar to an earlier flick about W's life. Fodder for the dollar theatre but not accuracy. Similarly I don't hang my knowledge of the JFK assasination on Stoney's movie "history". Moreover, unlike the Citizens United film makers, Stone is an entertainment promoter not a politico - consider the source and motives in interpreting "works of art". As an amateur artist myself, there are lots of "art" I would call "junk on a wall". I cannot assess the value of a film I have yet to see nor can I believe SCOTUS saw the Citizens United film and decided "Yup, that there is art not political diatribe."
Re: Your nailing a fellow poster about being like a little girl running away -
Are you serious? Is that the level you want to post?
Try "my Pop's bigger than yours".
I hereby lock up your skate key for a month until you learn your lesson.
Glad you came back, LibVet.
I'll dismiss strudel, first ... "Your nailing a fellow poster about being like a little girl running away -"
This is his MO. He'll throw all kinds of unfounded charges and accusations - many of them personal attacks, but then never stick around to defend them. What would you call it? strudel is a blowhard as I have said. Just look at the QUANTITY of what he posts! Worse yet, he shoots his mouth off about things he knows little as though he is some kind of expert. That gets under my skin. I believe he was a lawyer because he has to mention it at least once in every thread as though that proves something (see the logical fallacy Argumentum Verecundiam (Arugment from Authority). So yes, I believe he was a lawyer. A bad one. And it's not about ideology. You are to the left of him and yet you can discuss rationally. Enough time wasted on him.
"Make up your mind, be consistent; sometimes say the Constitution says A, B, C, NO MORE, and decry expanded interpretation; then you counter yourself to say SCOTUS must consider broader implications. "
These are not contradictory. It is the high court's job to INTERPRET the Constitution to cases. Those interpretations can have far-reaching effects and cover many cases because they set precedent and those are generally the cases that the court will hear. That's all I was saying. I was certainly not calling for selective legislation from the bench as some have. Far from it. There is a difference between understanding that court rulings have broad implications and calling for legislation from the bench.
Part deux
"I suspect he's interested in entertainment and profit not political capital "
Stone is a very political guy. So is Michael Moore, the other example. The point is, it doesn't matter what the motivation is. No one can know that. You may think that the boat has left the dock, but if the Democrats could use such a vehicle to paint Republicans in general in a negative light, should Stone be allowed to release his movie, or Moore a movie slamming Mormonism that never mentions Romney? Call it "art" if you like, but it could have political implications. The court recognized in CU v FEC that making those kinds of determinations is a sloppy mess - because each one involves a separate judgment call! So this was not giving "personhood" to corporations, it was recognition of the fact that speech, whether "art or political diatribe" rules. That's why the case, in my view, couldn't have been decided any other way.
ecgberht wrote:
"Part I (yet again?!) And I write a lot?! I've refuted your 14 posts with 3!
"Go ahead, represent someone in court with your truly pathetic understanding of Law."
Have you gotten unilateral contracts straight yet, strudel? I've had to school you on that twice already! 'nuff said on this one.
"The Supreme Court hears many kinds of cases, some involving very narrow matters, some of broader interest"
So you agree with me.
Part II
"I’m not going to give you a seminar on this topic,"
Too late.
"Caio"
Your way of saying you're not going to defend your scurulous attacks and run away like the little girl you always turn out to be"
ANOTHER 8 BALL IN THE POCKET
Dear eggie:
Since, unlike you apparently, I have a life (or try to), that means I can't spend all day, every day, responding to your nonsense. So if, from time to time, I announce I'm not continuing that day, it doesn't mean I'm "running away", or that your arguments are so "devastating" I can't respond. (They aren't.) It just means I'll get back to you another time. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
("Ciao" is simply my way of confirming I'm done for the moment.)
Nor do I have time to respond to your latest blather, but in light of recent events I thought I'd revisit part of our earlier discussion.
Back on June 22, 2012 - 12:15 am, you asked these inane questions: “What should states do if the FG stops minting money or fielding an army? Now, what should states do if the FG is not defending the borders?”
This was on the topic of Immigration enforcement (the context for what we’re discussing on this page). And in particular: SB1070 (which Arizona claims is a valid response to the alleged failure of the Federal government to act.)
My response was: “According to the Constitution? NOTHING! (June 22, 2012 @ 4:16 am)
Indeed, this exchange arose out of an earlier Comment of mine (June 21, 2012 @ 5:26 pm) where I expressed the hope that the Supreme Court would follow precedent and the Constitution, and declare Arizona’s SB1070 an invasion of “Federal rights” (i.e.: the authority of Federal government).
As you doubtless know by now, I got my wish, and it pretty much demolishes everything else you’ve had to say on that particular subject. As I said before, when it comes to Immigration (“defending the borders”) only the Federal government has the constitutional authority to act. (Funny how knowing the law can help one get it right.)
But please don’t take my word for it. Read the decision yourself: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182.pdf
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Of course, I’m confident you’ll find a way to take parts of what I wrote out-of-context, forget or deny what you wrote, take refuge in vagueness, evasion and avoidance, and convince yourself (and your “cheering section”) that you were right all along!
And I’ll deal with that, and your other inanities, another time.
Ciao!
There are reasons for U.S. immigration law and EVERY country on this planet has immigration law. I'm personally becoming a bit tired of hearing how US citizens are racist and all the other narrow minded views that come with the subject if illegal immigration. I realize this is a complex issue and there are valid points of view on both sides however, illegal immigration is a problem in America and has become out of hand. I believe America is by far one of the most tolerant, fair and understanding countries in the world regarding this topic. I also feel its absurd how people who are illegal in this country feel they should have all the rights of a legal citizen. The fact remains if you're of illegal status, you're breaking the law... period! I will say I think we need serious immigration reform to address 'certain' illegal immigrants such as children brought here at a young age, then make major changes in law to reduce these issues in the future. One major change I believe must be addressed is the ability to gain US citizenship simply by being born within US borders, this is obviously one of the root problems. It is high time our government gets serious about illegal immigration. I currently live in North Carolina and folks can deny all they want but it is an undeniable fact that illegal immigration is without any doubt having a negative impact on tax-paying citizens that must be dealt with.