Discussion
  • Read More
    The Noble RenardBrendan O'Connor
    11/09/15 9:15pm

    A) I’m glad the headline got it right, but I think the article should clarify more that this was just the initial injunction that the States sought, not a final decision on whether or not the plan will be allowed. Which will, admittedly, likely not occur until Obama has left office, making that point somewhat moot.

    B) This is just immensely frustrating for everyone involved. DACA has been absolutely fantastic. I dare any opponents of the plan to actually spend half an hour chatting with some of the people who are currently on DACA status. I know several people who got it, and they are just insanely amazing people. Bright, talented, hardworking, and really trying to make a difference in their communities and make America a better place for everyone. The kind of people who the phrase “American Dream” really applies to, the ones that put me to shame because I haven’t gone through even a fraction of what they have, and yet they still have more optimism and strength than I do. Is that every one of the DREAMers? No, of course not. But there is just so much talent out there, so many people whose homes are here in America and who deserve a chance to come out of the shadows and truly contribute to their full potential, that to see the Court uphold this injunction based partly on the argument that the States will have to bear the tottttalllly terrrrrible cost of paying for some driver’s licenses? Never mind that the states are already bearing the cost of not collecting taxes for people who are working off the books and, once they get work permits, could actually pay further in to the system...

    C) Screw Judge Hanen and the 5th Circuit.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LeBonAnonThe Noble Renard
      11/09/15 10:28pm

      None of them are stateless. In fact, they’re highly talented relative to the workforce of their native countries. If you want a world where they thrive the most and where their skills can be most impactful in creating good and sustainable communities, then you should support repatriating them. The compounded interest in that scheme is they’ll build their home nations into places less and less likely to send illegal immigrants to the United States. Read up on brain-drain as it affects the developing world. Repatriation is brain-gain.

      America’s focus shouldn’t be foreign wars fought in Central Asia; our foreign policy focus should be in building the economies of Central America and Mexico so as to have wealthy trading partners and border security.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      The Noble RenardLeBonAnon
      11/09/15 10:37pm

      This is their home. These kids grew up here, they speak English perfectly, they went to American schools, and are American in every single way. They have American partners and they do American jobs and they are American in every way that counts besides a piece of paper.

      “Repatriating” is a ghastly word for “Forcibly detaining people, pulling them away from their home, locking them up for months until they get a chance to go in front of an immigration judge, and then if they lose their case, sending them back to a country they have no memory of.”

      And it’s funny how you point out how we might actually be helping all of these Central American countries by deporting people back to them. Well, you know what happened last time we went on a massive wave of deportations? In the 1990s, during the height of the “tough on criminal aliens” wave, we rounded up a whole bunch of LA gang members who had lived here their entire lives and deported them back to Central America. The end result? The creation of the MS 13 and other transnational criminal organizations that hadn’t existed beforehand, as kids steeped in LA gang culture went back to countries that they had no investment in and immediately started setting up their own gangs there. Prior to that, Central America had no gang culture. The leftist guerillas mostly stuck to fighting their own battles, the Mexican cartels hadn’t made their way down there, and Columbia was too far south for the cocaine trade to really flourish. So the kids who’d grown up in South Central, who barely spoke Spanish and who had no allegiance to their “home country” brought a whole new wave of crime, destabilized governments, and now Central America is barely behind Syria and Yemen as one of the most dangerous places in the entire world, precisely because we practiced a policy of severe repatriation.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Hello_Madam_PresidentBrendan O'Connor
    11/09/15 9:12pm

    which would have protected parents of children who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and also included an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protected immigrants if they were brought into the country illegally as children.

    It’s truly difficult for me to see this as anything other than sheer malice.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      OneEyeJim900Hello_Madam_President
      11/09/15 9:22pm

      From a humanitarian point it's just sad.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sean BrodyHello_Madam_President
      11/09/15 9:23pm

      It’s truly difficult for me to see this as anything other than sheer malice.

      They despise him, absolutely.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    gramercypoliceBrendan O'Connor
    11/09/15 9:24pm

    And in other entertainment news, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that any police officer can shoot anyone involved in a chase, for any reason, and enjoy full immunity. By the Court’s logic, the death of that 6-yo boy in Louisiana is, by definition, justifiable

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-s…

    The high court said the benefit of the doubt in such cases always goes to the police officer who sees a potentially dangerous situation. The court has “never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment,” the justices said in an unsigned 12-page opinion.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hello_Madam_Presidentgramercypolice
      11/09/15 9:31pm

      So you’re saying that wasn’t already the case...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      gramercypoliceHello_Madam_President
      11/09/15 9:36pm

      Well, in this case the officer violated a direct order by his commander not to shoot, but he shot anyway. And the Court still granted him immunity. So, now they’re saying that even if a shooting clearly violates policy, it’s still fine. Normally, the shootings are said to be justified because they follow policy. The Court is saying, “policy schmolicy”.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Mew-Tang-ClanBrendan O'Connor
    11/09/15 9:10pm

    I’m not saying he didn’t have a full plate at the time, but this is why Obama should have taken advantage of the two Democratically-held houses in Congress at the beginning of his first term. If only his administration knew how little they’d be able to get done after the midterms, maybe they wouldn’t have coasted.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2Brendan O'Connor
      11/09/15 9:13pm

      For those of you who are interested, it’s called the “take care” clause. Here are a few articles:

      http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!…

      https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…

      Bottom line- criminal, environmental, etc. law enforcement tends to allow more discretion to presidents, while civil rights enforcement offers the least discretion- there’s a spectrum between those two poles.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        liz.lemonadeBrendan O'Connor
        11/09/15 9:32pm

        Tonight's episode of Jane the Virgin was making me all glowy about immigration reform (#vote #vote #vote). Then I read this. Dammit.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          toothpetardBrendan O'Connor
          11/09/15 9:24pm

          significant equities in the country

          Just like the old days! I wonder if they can make it retroactive.

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            henwyBrendan O'Connor
            11/09/15 9:11pm

            It hardly seems fair that new immigrants are targeted while the ones who’ve been around for a while are left alone. I mean, all other things being equal they broke the exact same law and should face the exact same penalty. If anything, someone who broke the law and then got away with it for 10 years should be more culpable than someone who just broke the law I would think. I can understand the reasoning for difference levels of focus for other factors...like people with extensive criminal records vs none, but the length you’ve gotten away with your offense seems like a bullshit reason.

            Reply
            <
            • Read More
              Dude In ColoradoBrendan O'Connor
              11/09/15 9:23pm

              U.S. citizens get no special breaks when they violate the law - to the contrary, draconian enforcement for even minor offenses is the norm ...

              Reply
              <
              • Read More
                2DollarzBrendan O'Connor
                11/09/15 9:11pm

                Thanks Trump!

                Reply
                <