Patterico's Pontifications


Pres. Obama’s coded message on immigration

Filed under: General — Karl @ 8:59 am

[Posted by Karl]

Today’s New York Times report that Pres. Obama “plans to begin” addressing the country’s immigration system this year is an example of the way Democratic elites use the paper to talk in code among themselves.  The lede notes that Obama has this plan, despite “acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult,” then informs readers of the following:

Some White House officials said that immigration would not take precedence over the health care and energy proposals that Mr. Obama has identified as priorities…


Democratic legislative aides said that opening a full-fledged debate this year on immigration, particularly with health care as a looming priority, could weigh down the president’s domestic agenda.


No serious legislative talks on the issue are expected until after some of Mr. Obama’s other priorities have been debated, Congressional aides said.


Anticipating opposition, Mr. Obama has sought to shift some of the political burden to advocates for immigrants, by encouraging them to build support among voters for when his proposal goes to Congress.

Obama knows that the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was wildly unpopular.  Indeed, he played a decisive role in killing the bill on behalf of Big Labor — a major Democratic constituency.  Obama — and anyone else paying attention — also knows that none of his three biggest agenda items is likely to achieve final passage before this fall, as Congress chokes on an agenda that is already “too much, too soon.”

Accordingly, this story is best read as the Obama Administration launch of a trial balloon intended to crash like the Hindenburg.  The subtext of the story is that illegal immigrants may enter the US without standing in line, but the open borders lobby has to wait its turn behind the interests pushing big government healthcare, massive energy taxes, etc.  The subtext is that the open borders lobby should be happy with the stealth agenda the administration is already pursuing on immigration, until such time as the lobby manages to make its poisonous issue popular.

(via Memeorandum.)


55 Responses to “Pres. Obama’s coded message on immigration”

  1. Also a great example of how a savvy politician manages to get credit for wanting to do something without taking any risks associated with its popularity or consequences, while at the same time deflecting blame for not doing anything about his stated priority and getting the political chits for being reasonable and restrained.

    Not a bad haul for doing nothing about the issue.

    tim maguire (4a98f0)

  2. I would love to see Julia Preston’s comments on the JournoList.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  3. Obama really doesn’t want to go anywhere near the immigration issue, because to this day he still can’t produce his green card.

    Official Internet Data Office (47bf25)

  4. It is incomprehensible that he might have lost his membership card from the Sierra Club,
    or was that the Natural Resources Defense Council?

    AD - RtR/OS (da3c7c)

  5. I did not think you were allowed to vote present in the White House.

    JD (2f33d2)

  6. Obama just has to find a way to keep his Aunt in Boston public housing.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  7. Obama just has to find a way to keep his Aunt in Boston public housing, all without costing Obama a dime personally.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  8. Obama just has to find a way to keep his Aunt in Boston public housing, all without costing Obama a dime personally.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  9. Someone needs an editor…

    AD - RtR/OS (da3c7c)

  10. It is incomprehensible that he might have lost his membership card from the Sierra Club,
    or was that the Natural Resources Defense Council?

    I just got approached downtown with another solicitor from GreenPeace, who started with the big grabber line of “Do you like Whales?” I started laughing and waved her off. Too funny.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  11. Dmac,

    I got that same line, only it was in a bar, right before last call.

    Karl (ea222a)

  12. Do you like Whales

    Yes, they’re delicious. And the oil keeps my house warm. Any other questions?

    KB (5a6552)

  13. Are you positive she wasn’t hawking a tour to Cardiff?

    AD - RtR/OS (da3c7c)

  14. No, she was the real deal, replete with those St. Pat’s Kelly green shirts and obnoxious clip boards to take a survey on.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  15. But, was she of a type that you secrectly wish she would give you the shirt off her back?
    Enquiring (dirty) minds want to know.

    AD - RtR/OS (da3c7c)

  16. ______________________________________

    Cutting out all the gameplaying and BS from various parts of the political spectrum — particularly from, on one hand, laissez-faire, libertarian conservatives (eg, the authors of certain editorials run in the Wall Street Journal) to, on the other, no-justice-no-peace, weepy-eyed liberals — this is the heart, or the nub, of the matter:, Heather MacDonald

    Honesty from the Left on Hispanic Immigration

    October 2008

    John McCain and Barack Obama have largely avoided discussing immigration during the presidential campaign. But when it comes to the legal side of the issue, they both seem to support the status quo: an official policy centered around low-skilled, predominately Hispanic immigrants. A forthcoming book shows just how misguided that policy is, especially in light of the nation’s current economic woes. The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies, by Patricia Gandara and Frances Contreras, offers an unflinching portrait of Hispanics’ educational problems and reaches a scary conclusion about those problems’ costs.

    The book’s analysis is all the more surprising given that its authors are liberals committed to bilingual education, affirmative action, and the usual slate of left-wing social programs. Yet Gandara and Contreras, education professors at UCLA and the University of Washington, respectively, are more honest than many conservative open-borders advocates in acknowledging the bad news about Hispanic assimilation.

    Hispanics are underachieving academically at an alarming rate, the authors report. Though second- and third-generation Hispanics make some progress over their first-generation parents, that progress starts from an extremely low base and stalls out at high school completion. High school drop-out rates — around 50 percent — remain steady across generations. Latinos’ grades and test scores are at the bottom of the bell curve. The very low share of college degrees earned by Latinos has not changed for more than two decades. Currently only one in ten Latinos has a college degree.

    One hundred years ago, when the U.S. still required a large industrial and agricultural labor force, Hispanics’ lagging educational performance would not have been such a problem. Our current information-based economy is unforgiving to the less-educated, however….By 2025, one in four students nationally will be Latino; in many Southwest cities, Latinos are already about 70 percent of the school population. For the first time in history, the authors observe, the ethnic group with the lowest academic achievement will become the majority in significant parts of the country.

    Federal, state, and local governments have already spent billions trying to overcome the Latino education gap, with little success. That gap persists in part because of the stigma against academic achievement among many Latino males. Contreras and Gandara recount a typical classroom episode: a boy correctly answered a math question, only to be greeted by chants of “schoolboy, schoolboy” from the other male children, followed by the comment: “Now you think you are smart.”

    The Latino Education Crisis pulls no punches in its conclusions: “With no evidence of an imminent turnaround in the rate at which Latino students are either graduating from high school or obtaining college degrees, it appears that both a regional and national catastrophe are at hand.”

    Mark (411533)

  17. I don’t like Barack Hussein Obama any more than anyone else here, but it seems kind of difficult to criticize him on the immigration issue when nobody else has done the first thing about it.

    The illegal immigrants are here because we pay them to come here. It isn’t tyhat some evil corporation pays them to come here, but we do, every one of us, with our economic choices. When Swift was busted for using illegals, did we put Swift out of business by not buying their meats any longer? When Tyson got busted, did we stop buying Tyson chicken?

    Let’s get very real here: we aren’t going to plug the holes in the border and we aren’t going to seek out and deport the illegals already here. Unless we are willing to do that, actually willing, as in really doing it, not just talking about it, then we are left with only two alternatives: find some way to legalize the illegals, and impose some sort of regulation and taxatin on them, or leave them illegal.

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  18. #17, Common sense.

    But you get people stuck on the misdemeanor criminal activities and somehow launch into outer-space thinking we are going to round up 15MM people by calling them criminals and then “make them disappear.”

    We do however need to get much tougher at the border and make it plainly obvious that until they properly get residency our Government’s job is to fine them and not give them any gov.t benefits.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  19. So, no plans released yet, and no details to go on. But that’s all the right wingnuts need to know, they are against whatever he might propose or do. No thought to the process, the procedure or the policy, you’re just against everything for political gain. How can you people expect anyone to take you seriously? The right’s “America first” slogan is turning into a bigger joke than “fair and balanced”. The GOP still has yet to hit bottom!

    drumbum (1a1ad1)

  20. I don’t like Barack Hussein Obama any more than anyone else here, but it seems kind of difficult to criticize him on the immigration issue when nobody else has done the first thing about it.
    Comment by The realistic Dana — 4/10/2009 @ 4:22 am

    It’s not difficult at all, just no different than having to criticize President Bush or Senator McCain or the dozens of other elected officials who are ignoring what the majority of Americans are saying. The fact that both parties refuse to implement rational policies and discharge their sworn duties to uphold the laws and the Constitution does not exempt President Obama from criticism. I just can’t say it’s all his fault without being a hypocrite.

    I agree that punishing willful employers of illegal aliens (even if we can’t deport the employers 😉 ) would be good. So would denying benefits and non-emergency public services to illegals. Emergency cases relying on public funds should be stabilized, then deported for follow-up in their own country. If they’re not getting in-state tuition, public scholarships, welfare, free medical care, etc… most will leave on their own. This has already been shown to work in several areas. Deport the criminals first (I’m using Patterico’s shorthand here. I definitely understand that being here illegally makes them criminals. See his series if the meaning is unclear), hold employers accountable to reasonable standards by giving them the tools to ensure they’re employing people legally, withhold non-emergency benefits of all types to illegals, provide emergency needs at public expense followed by deportation (if they want to avoid deportation, either pay out-of-pocket to avoid disclosing immigration status or don’t come here illegally), and not allowing access to civil courts for lawsuits while here illegally (they should not have standing until they’re standing on their own soil or here legally), would be good places to start.

    The legal immigration process is a nightmare of incomprehensible regulations, petty bureaucrats, inflated costs, and (IMO) corruption. Streamline the process, simplify the paperwork so that an ordinary person can understand and submit it on their own (we were told there are certain forms that must be submitted by attorneys or they will not be accepted), cut staff at each USCIS office at least 50% (at minimum, 75% of our “local” USCIS, three hours away, were of the petty bureaucrat variety that did nothing involving actual processing… giving out numbers to wait, telling people where to sit, reviewing documents that had already been reviewed… especially galling when accompanied by the phrase “Let me see your papers”. Plus, much of what we had to travel there for could have been done at a truly local location, such as fingerprints… they had to be done by USCIS and would not have been accepted if performed by city/state/county law enforcement even though it all goes to the same database), and increase/simplify the guest-worker process as well. If they want an honest job let an employer sponsor them, pay them under our laws with wages that a citizen would get (if the job is truly one that Americans “don’t want to do”, then a fair wage shouldn’t be a problem), ensure that taxes are deducted, and be responsible for reporting violations once the guest-worker is here. If they truly want to immigrate, let any time legally spent as a guest-worker count towards the residency requirement for citizenship.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  21. Thank you for your sober and insightful analysis, bum.

    JD (1f8ada)

  22. Comment by drumbum — 4/10/2009 @ 6:11 am

    Thanks for stopping by with your own insights into illegal immigration and what should be done… wait, all you are here for is to bash “wingnuts”? Never mind.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  23. GMTA JD. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  24. The realistic Dana,

    I’m not bashing BO for not doing anything. If I’m bashing BO at all on this, it’s for telling the open borders lobby he would make this a first-year priority when it clearly isn’t. But more that that, this post is inspired by other bloggers who read the NYT story and found it baffling that he would launch on immigration now… because the real message of the story was the exact opposite.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  25. But, was she of a type that you secrectly wish she would give you the shirt off her back?

    Uh, not really – about 20 years too young and a bit too husky for my tastes.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  26. No E-Verify in the stimulus secures jobs for illegal aliens. The HLS changes also do that. Contractors with less than $100,000 in a federal contract, will NOT verify the “status” of their workers.

    Obama’s aunt defied orders of deportation two times. She lived in Federal public housing since at least 2004 – 08, when she was moved to, Boston State housing handicap living AFTER her back surgery – that ‘we paid for’ not Obama.

    He denied knowing how to reach her. (She was in the phone book- how clueless it that?) His people managed to get in touch with her as she was at his swearing in as both a senator and president.

    He has never produced a birth certificate. Which would be simple enough to do. Just watching the new world order coming in. Will people ever wake up in time?

    question – can we post links within our comments?

    Watching the NWO (82865e)

  27. question – can we post links within our comments?

    Yes, with the “link” button. The first pop-up box will need the url you want to link. The second will be the text that shows up underlined and in blue. It will automatically jump to the end of your comment, so you may have to cut&paste or move your link to get it where you want it. Look to the live preview to see if it worked. If it did, you can right-click and open your link properly in a new window. If it didn’t, we’ll try to figure out why.

    He has never produced a birth certificate.

    I mean no, no way to post links. (This has been debunked so many times that if you post a link “proving” any part of the birth-certificate-trutherism you will only be proving something entirely unintended. Your call.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  28. A link to Patterico’s would look like this (replace the “[” and “]” brackets with html brackets):

    [a href=”” target=”_blank”]this[/a]

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  29. Questionaire from a previous thread:

    President Obama’s mother was a citizen? If you answered yes, stop here.
    The State of Hawaii determines the validity of their birth documentation? If you answered yes, stop here.
    President Obama has already been elected, the election certified, sworn in and assumed duties as President. Having President Obama is better than having President Biden? If you answered yes, stop here.
    The 9/11 truthers, fake moon-landing truthers, Palin-Trig truthers (yes, you too Sullivan), and Boy George should all be examined and treated if necessary? If you answered yes, stop here.
    If you haven’t answered yes to any of the above, carry on. You make yourself look deranged, but it’s a free country.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  30. The Silent Immigration Policy Change – HLS jobs for illegal aliens

    Thank you Stanshiu3, I will try to put the link in for my comment on HLS. I could not get it to work. Guess you can not copy & paste the link into the box. It could be “operator error” ~sigh.

    The article is from Judicial Watch
    “Govt. Contractors Can Hire Illegal Immigrants”
    Mon, 11/17/2008 – 16:07

    This means the stimulus jobs (federal) can hire illegal aliens. This is part the hidden, illegal alien- immigration measures already in place.

    While millions of American’s now struggle to find jobs, keep their homes, feed their families they are being lured into thinking the stimulus jobs will go to them. (Unless you are a ‘white male construction worker’)

    Watching the NWO (82865e)

  31. NWO, I type in the words I want to use for the link, then I highlight the words as if I were going to copy them and then click on the link box. When the pop-up opens, I place the link info off my clipboard into the pop-up.

    But it’s good to know how to do the a href=”stuff” too because many blogsites don’t have a link button.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  32. Yes, the State of Hawaii determines the validity of their birth documentation, but only the Supreme Court of the United States, if they choose to, can rule on what exactly a “natural born citizen” means, and what documentation is sufficient to prove that.

    Even so, the State of Hawaii’s birth documentation is kind of sloppy. Until 1972, the state issued a birth certificate called a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” and gave them out even to children who were not born in Hawaii. Hawaii also gave them out to children who were born in Hawaii.

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  33. It doesn’t matter where Barack Obama was born. If the members of the electoral college selected a 17 year old Tibetian boy who spoke no English and had never been out of his country to be our next president, and the United States Congress certified those results, that 17 year old Tibetian boy would be the next president, because the Constitution provides no enforcement mechanism at all concerning the “natiral born citizen” or even the age requirements.

    Besides, as our friends on the left tell us, the Constitution is a “living document.”

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  34. OIDO,

    We went through all this when some Dems claimed that John McCain was not eligible because he was born in Panama.

    President Obama’s mother was a citizen? If you answered yes, stop here.

    Since you skipped this, shall I assume you answered no? The questions were in order for a reason. Was his mother a citizen? Yes or no? If no, please document with some credible evidence beyond blogosphere conjecture. Then, please continue past the Hawaii issue if that’s a “no” to you (all you gave is supposition, but whatever). When you reach the last line:

    If you haven’t answered yes to any of the above, carry on. You make yourself look deranged, but it’s a free country.

    take it to heart. Just let me know so I can give appropriate weight to your future comments. Thanks.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  35. Those questions, and they order they are in, have no particular merit. I’ve seen them before. Who the hell are you? You’re a guy who found a list of questions on a previous thread, thought they were cute, and copied and pasted them. That’s all. You don’t know how to frame the issue. In fact, you don’t even know what the principal issue is, even though I mentioned it clearly in my post, above.

    Read my earlier post carefully, and try to think about what I’m saying and about what I’m not saying, and desist with your arrogant tone and smart-ass attitude. You are in no particular position to judge anyone else, especially since your reading comprehension is so poor. The citizenship of Obama’s mother is not relevant. For what it’s worth, I’m not sure that McCain qualifies under Article II, either. And that’s because the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on what, technically, a “natural born citizen” is.

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  36. OIDO, he found what he wrote on a different thread to be interesting and then copy/pasted it over here? You’re really going to stand by that? And you’re even going to ask Stashiu3 who he is? Are you serious?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  37. I though the list was contrived and misleading the first time I saw it, too.

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  38. So, OIDO, I butchered your attack and you redirected without admitting you made a list of foolish attacks.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  39. OIDO,

    I made the list. I made the comments on the previous thread. The questions originated with me. I was extensively commenting on the John McCain thread where “natural born citizen” was thoroughly covered. If you’re not sure that McCain was qualified, you’re the one who doesn’t understand the issue or how to frame it.

    Her citizenship is indeed relevant, under the Constitution, the laws as they were written when President Obama was born, and as they are now. If she was a citizen, there are very few exceptions to him automatically being a “natural born citizen”, and he does not fall under those exceptions. Say what you will about my tone and attitude… maybe you’re right. My reading comprehension on this is just fine… you’re just wrong.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  40. OIDO,

    Just so you know… I am very familiar with this issue because it the arguments could apply to my own family. I did a lot of research on the McCain thread. You claimed that I just copy & pasted those “misleading and contrived” questions that I “found”, now you’re claiming that you knew I wrote them? Well, I know how much weight to give your comments now. I try very hard not to make misleading or contrived comments… so the amount of weight you deserve is none.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  41. The citizenship of Obama’s mom is indeed helpful to establish whether Obama is a US citizen, if he was not born in the US (according to various US statutes) but a US citizen isn’t necessarily a constitutional “natural born citizen,” because we never had a ruling on that from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your template of questions pretends to be a definitive logical sequence of tests, but I don’t buy it. The question isn’t settled until the Supreme Court says it is. And if McCain was clearly qualified, why did the Senate need to assert that again by passing a non-binding resolution?

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  42. And if McCain was clearly qualified, why did the Senate need to assert that again by passing a non-binding resolution?

    To try to shut up nutjobs?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  43. Excuse me, Stashiu, but I didn’t say I knew you wrote the questions originally. Obviously, I didn’t realize that, but now I do.

    But once again, I think they’re contrived and misleading now, just as I did then, and I don’t accept the template as effective. No one knows what SCOTUS would say. But we do know how the state of Hawaii has created a loophole of doubt because of their practice of issuing birth certificates, in some cases, to children not born there, before 1972.

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  44. The citizenship of Obama’s mom is indeed helpful to establish whether Obama is a US citizen

    I thought you just said it wasn’t relevant? Now it is?

    If she was a U.S. citizen, it doesn’t matter where he was born unless he falls under one of the very few exceptions. Even if he wasn’t born in Hawaii (which for most of us has been documented sufficiently), he’s a citizen. Actually, the question is settled until the Supreme Court decides that it is not, and they don’t see any reason to visit the issue over this. The laws on citizenship deal with two types: Natural Born and Naturalized. Are you claiming that President Obama is not a citizen at all? If he is, and not natural born, when was he naturalized? If you’re trying to claim that he’s not a citizen at all, feel free to do that. Then just jump back to the last question on my list.

    And the Senate didn’t need to assert anything by resolution, binding or otherwise. They chose to because the Dems wanted McCain to run and the GOP wanted to show support for McCain as well. It was political theater, something (if not the only thing) the Senate is good at.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  45. Well, some of us wonder if he isn’t really alien spawn dropped on a rock in Area-51;
    but, that would probably be a rational explanation for his thought processes.

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  46. To try to shut up nutjobs?
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 4/10/2009 @ 1:37 pm

    It obviously didn’t work, like much of what the Senate does. If OIDO insists on being a truther, good for him and good for us. Everyone knows now where they stand and how much to listen to. If you don’t like arrogance and attitude, ignore me on this. If you don’t like trutherism or conspiracy-theorists, ignore him on this.

    I don’t see any reason to continue with him here. YMMV. 😉

    Time to go pick up my (not a citizen yet) daughter. Be well.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  47. OK, we agree that the McCain resolution was theater.

    The citizenship of Obama’s mom is not relevant to the question of whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” in the sense of Article II. Yes, the statutes on citizenship talk about citizens born in the US, and citizens who are later naturalized, but you are forgetting that there is at least a third category–people who are neither citizens born in the US nor naturalized citizens. The Federal government’s term for some people like that is alien.

    Then, there’s a fourth category–people who are citizens only because of their ancestry. For example, former Senator Lowell Weicker, a Republican and later and independent, was born in France. It was universally accepted when he thought about running for President that he was ineligible. He was not born on US soil. He was not naturalized. He was a citizen because of his parentage, but was he qualified to the Office of President? Nobody thought so, except him.

    Finally there’s a fifth category–being a natural-born citizen in the sense of a qualification for the Office of President, as defined by the Constitution. Naturalized citizens don’t qualify here, aliens don’t qualify, and the whole question of whether Weicker, for example, was really eligible, is what we’re arguing about. Once again, the Supreme Court has never ruled on that.

    You are playing language games when you assert that if you’re not naturalized you must be natural-born. You could also be an alien. Or you could be a citizen but still not be eligible to the Presidency, if SCOTUS ruled that way.

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  48. OIDO: That dog don’t hunt.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  49. “Well, some of us wonder if he isn’t really alien spawn dropped on a rock in Area 51. . .”

    I’m not saying Obama’s not from this planet. I assume he is. And I’m willing to look at the documented proof, if he decides to produce it.

    Official Internet Data Office (7d4e4c)

  50. Stash – If you don’t like arrogance and attitude, ignore me on this.

    I like arrogance and attitude, as long as its backed up, but that’s not what you’ve been doing. You’ve been answering the questions and dealing with specifics.

    I have no problems with those actions, and no problem with you.

    Stashiu2 and Stashiu1, however…

    Apogee (f4320c)

  51. It’s nice to be dealing with the finer points of politics and what-not. But, ultimately, even politics per se is trumped by the power of demographics.

    Simply put, there are a lot of people who prefer (and gravitate to) a stable and at least somewhat successful society, from across the political spectrum — from all racial and ethnic backgrounds — who tend to avoid sending their children to schools made up predominantly of kids connected to decades of a huge amount of illegal immigration from south of the border.

    When that tactic of run-to-the-suburbs becomes an increasingly tougher goal for people in this country, and voting with one’s feet no longer is as easy as it once was, American society will have hit a wall. And by that time it will be as socially, politically and symbolically paralyzed and neutralized — and mediocritized — as a nation like Mexico is.

    Mark (411533)

  52. OIDO and Stashiu3 – As Karl points out in the link embedded in his post above, the 2007 immigration bill that fell apart in the Senate was wildly unpopular with the public of all political persuasions. Only 23% of the public supported it and Congress was ignoring them. What the public clearly saw as the primary is was reducing ILLEGAL immigration over time, which meant border security, employment check, etc. The paths to citizenship were secondary concerns, but Congress was not listening.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  53. daleyrocks,

    I agree and the middle paragraph of my comment here was about reducing illegal immigration. The last paragraph was a tangent, granted… but related. If legal immigration is reformed, there is a bit less incentive to break the law. If it’s easier for employers to get workers, there is less incentive to break the law. If following the laws gives an advantage in getting citizenship, there is less incentive to break the law. Congress focusing solely (or nearly so) on amnesty shows how out of touch, or blatantly indifferent, they are to what most people want. I may never vote for an incumbent who has already served two terms for their position again. The longer a politician stays in one spot, the more corrupted they become.

    Of course, after that comment came the truthers, who I promise not to feed further (anytime soon… I’m only human). 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  54. OIDO, you and I agree on many things. On this one issue, I respectfully think that you are a) misguided and b) discrediting your fellow conservatives with conspiracy memes.

    I know that you disagree, which is fine. Just try to think back to when you saw 4 or 8 years of people questioning hanging chads and such. Were those people who “knew” that Bush wasn’t *really* POTUS wasting their time and costing their side credibility?

    Obama is the President. That is reality.

    carlitos (92022c)

  55. […] recent press coverage of this issue was really a coded message to the open borders lobby that Obama does not intend to do anything publicly on the issue this […]

    The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Sen. Cornyn’s immigration maneuver (e2f069)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2962 secs.