New low? This is now the status quo. There is a constant attempt to silence the press and whitewash the news to promote a positive image of this shit show.
I'm fairly conservative , especially fiscally. I want immigration reform to happen. I do believe that international trade needs/needed to be renegotiated. But what this administration has caused me to realize is that the misogynistic, racist, fear mongering, anti-science, anti-free speech administration that we have in place isn't worth having; despite whatever gains we may make from it.
But the rush of democrats to make themselves the polar opposites of the republicans isn't doing them any favors either.

Obama talked there about holding UNACCOMPANIED children, not separating families except in a very few instances with cause, certainly not as a bargaining chip in a political fight.
Odd, they think indefinite incarceration is better than the infinitesimal chance they might release a child to an abusive family member....why doesn't that also go for kids in CPS who are being relocated then? We don't care about American children being abused?

They pretend this is an Obama policy (but slip up and admit it's 6 weeks old) and pretend this is only about illegals who've been caught (but it's being done to families requesting asylum legally too, despite Trump's claim) they specifically claim it isn't being done to legal asylum applicants (hoping you won't notice that only goes for those few entering legally at an international port but not those who surrender legally at border crossings).
The policy is a pure white house creation, one they disingenuously shirk all responsibility for. It's an obvious political ploy to blackmail Democrats into agreeing to Draconian Republican immigration reform to stop this outrageous abuse of refugees.
Wow, @bobknight33, pretty awful even from your team of deplorables.

Also full of outright *lies

Edit: To prove himself a liar, Trump has just ended this policy in the same way he created it, by executive order. No word on what happens to those already separated yet, but the practice of unilateral separation should end.

Big difference

The TEA party wants to follow the Constitution.
All other groups don't.

How do the justice democrats line up with the Constitution?

I checked you link to the JD platform - Some are worthy but still most are Un constitutional BS feel good look nonsense .


Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. --- Never pass FOx watching hen house- only a smaller government helps this and term limits.


Defend free speech and expression.-Left are the oppressors
Ensure universal healthcare as a right. -Un constitutional
Create the new new deal.
Ensure universal education as a right. Un constitutional
Ensure universal healthcare as a right.Un constitutional
Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation.Un constitutional
Defend and protect women’s rights. - So we dont cre about men?
Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, family leave, childcare. Un constitutional
Protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Un constitutional
Implement comprehensive immigration reform. agreed
Enact police reform. - Agreed arrest criminals
Combat homelessness. - bring back sanatoriums that liberals removed .

Published on Feb 7, 2017
Parody of 84 Lumber's Super Bowl commercial "The Journey Begins" which is nothing more than Liberal propaganda to promote open borders and to denounce President Trump's immigration reform.

Yet more Bullshit from the left. *lies

Any immigrant having a job is one less for an American.

5 workers in 1990 now 3 to sustain 1retiree. So we need to allow immigrants to be my sugar daddy when I retire. Only the left would come up with this excuse of Pimping of immigrants.

Immigrants ARE a drain on public budgets 11Billion in generated taxes is jack squat to what we spend on taking care of them.

ABC news indicated...
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317

"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year. "


Another report indicates $346 Billion per year.
http://www.rense.com/general81/dtli.htm


Net rates of immigration has fallen 10% . Yep the shitty economy will do that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/



He is right the game is rigged at the top. The rich want cheep labor and tha is not you. So yes immigrants are taking your job.


Sure today they might have a low skill job today but their children will grow up and take a good middle / upper class job which use to be yours or you childs.

Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. Emperor Obama didn't.

On one hand the president was engaged with the house and senate and the other president just figuratively said fuck you to the house and senate.

Also, remember the Democrats had all 3 branches for the first 2 years and the Obama campaign was to make immigration reform as one of his key addenda items once elected.


Finally if an illegal alien is already here working ( paying taxes ect) by very definition they ARE taking an American job.

Obama has a Pen and a Phone. Go get them Berry..

The Dems has Full control for 2 years during His 1st 4 years years and did nothing for this or for immigration reform.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President on Immigration Reform has been added as a related post - related requested by chingalera on that post.

>> ^shponglefan:

Ugh, horrible interviewer. Just fishing for soundbites, good for Buffett not to bite.


True enough, but also important to answer if you like that particular piece of legislation as well. You can support immigration reform and think McCain Reform bill sucks donkey balls, without in turn thinking immigration reform is a bad idea.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Thanks net, but it still seems like the idea of "progressive" isn't a real idea. I think the word is dead, it conveys no true meaning. If you ponder on someone is who is a Calvinist, you know where they stand on the issue of predestination. If you ponder about someone who is a "progressive" about their view on government censorship or immigration, you don't get the necessarily same answer.

You don't necessarily get the same answer from a "conservative" on those topics either. Conservatives loves themselves some censorship, and I can find self-identified conservatives who are both pro-immigration reform (George W. Bush, pre-2008 John McCain), and those who are rabidly anti-immigrant who want them all deported.

Different interpretations of the philosophy doesn't mean the word "conservative" is meaningless, it just means there's no comprehensive dogma associated with it that takes a definite position on every debated question in human civilization.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
If the only justification that a progressive is, is happiness, that is a very poor standard. Happiness is completely subjective. If there is no other justification for the progressive position, then the position is completely irrational. If so, there is no reason for me to accept the progressive position as a position, but a feeling guided with post-rationalizations.

How is happiness subjective? It's hard to quantify, but there's nothing subjective about saying "the suffering caused by denying marriage to gay people outweighs the discomfort you feel when you see them get married".

It's not some dogmatic list of absolutes, if that's what you're getting at. But it seems to me like that's a strength of the philosophy, not a weakness.

I mean, to really invalidate the philosophy, you have to explain to me how it could be "right" to take an action that literally has no positive net benefit to humanity, and more specifically, to make the argument for its righteousness without ever appealing to positive outcomes from taking the action.

In any case, the liberal/progressive viewpoint is more narrowly defined than utilitarianism or consequentialism. I'm just saying the philosophical underpinnings are generally consequentialist, IMO.

While I don't really care for it when people use the word "progressive" to describe an ideology, and not a person or a political movement, Cenk is using it correctly in his above rant. He cites example after example of things Obama has done that conflict with what I think are defining beliefs of a progressive.

If you're looking for some sort of definitive policy platform, I can probably find one for you, but it's not going to be all that much more specific than the "conservative" policy platform.

For a man who teaches history, he seems to conveniently forget that racism and slavery have existed for as long as there is human history. You can't have real immigration reform with large social welfare's. I too would like to see the boarders opened up mind you, it could really revitalize certain industries. I find it interesting that the net effect of many social welfare's have unintended consequences like this.

That said, this was a nice thing for fox to do. They let him redeem himself in the public light. I can't believe I am saying this but nicely done fox, now I need to go wash my mouth out.

I'm all for immigration reform. Rewrite the laws. Have them make sense, and then ENFORCE THEM!
Stop companies from taking advantage of illegal immigrants. Make it easier to become a citizen. But have some control over how people can come into this country.

If you have a green card you are bound legally to carry it with you 24 hours a day.
When I travel internationally I have to have my passport and visa with me 24 hours a day.
If I travel into Mexico I have to have my passport and I have to show it to an officer when requested.
Same thing whenever I travel to China. In fact whenever I travel through regional borders I have to provide my passport. Same thing with every hotel I stay at in China. All of them require I provide my passport and they provide a copy of main page to the local government.
I carry my drivers license with me always. I would never even think of it as an offense if an officer asked to see it.

wp.
sorry bud.
just read your second post.
while i may disagree with some points your argument was far better than the first.
so we can agree that immigration reform should be done and be done quickly?
because i dont see how a major corporation should be allowed to bus and house "illegals" to work in their plants and harvest their crops and the workers are then treated like the criminals.
the INS only will arrest 10% of these "illegals" so production may continue.
how is it a poor mexicans fault when they were recruited by the company?
these people are poor and are grabbing at an opportunity to feed their family.
the hypocrisy is just atrocious.

Arizona is a Right to Carry state; this could have been much, much worse.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36703

Seems to me that this law puts teeth on the Federal Immigration Laws. I fear sounding like an insensitive prick, but if people are in the country illegally, they are already in violation of a Federal Law; no matter what race, creed or whatever. What does the opposition want, what is their grievance; if they want a free ride then they have to seek repealing of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, and its amendments.
The political doctrine of the "racist" is disgusting. See this; http://www.9500liberty.com/ . The problem is complicated, but racism or violence is not the answer.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration
Federal law.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000994----000-.html
States rights to legislate on immigration.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001251----000-.html

"5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S."


"22. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person to do or attempt to do the following if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the U.S. in violation of law:

a) transport or move an alien in Arizona in a means of transportation;

b) conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any building or means of transportation."

Section 5 is vague, section 22 could have an impact that was not intended. Section 5 throws up red flags all over.

EDIT: Watch the video in my comment below. A regular Law Officer should not have the right to Profile people; federal law. I've struck out my original opinion of the bill. This bill is a terrible knee-jerking reaction, and innocents will suffer as a result; and that is inexcusable.

But... why is she on Letterman?

To clarify: there are "movements" with larger followings than the Tea Party that are getting a lot less press.

See marijuana legalization and immigration reform.