Thread: Barack "Bipartisan" Obama

Here's your bipartisanship right here:

The White House and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz), the No. 2 man in the Senate GOP leadership, feuded Monday over immigration policy, as the Arizona senator said that President obama personally told him the administration will not support stricter border enforcement until Republicans back broad immigration reform.

The White House calls him a liar with this statement,

But what everybody knows because the President has made it perfectly clear is that what we need to do is everything that we can to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," he added. "And that includes not just securing the border, but doing a lot of other things.

that kind of supports Kyl's statement, does it not?

I listened to Obama while driving to work yesterday.

Pretty amazing; he spoke for a while, but he didn't really say anything...

Anyone with a lick of common sense can tell that (like the Buish admin) the Obama admin is unwilling to even try to bring a reasonable level of security to our border.

When he says "bipartisan" he means he needs cover for bad ideas he wants to enact as law and can't get his own party's supermajorities in Congress to pass.

Originally Posted by Steve

I listened to Obama while driving to work yesterday.

Pretty amazing; he spoke for a while, but he didn't really say anything...

And thus you know just how this POS got elected.

And, of course, we all know what Obama means by "immigration reform" ..

.. That's right: amnesty.

One way or the other, he's looking for amnesty.

I just knew electing a Democrat man to the Presidency who is the son of a non-American father, would be just asking for trouble on this subject, and indeed, his inexplicable addiction to amnesty in the midst of this terrible recession he should be more focused on remedying in truly qute troubling.

And here we are in the midst of the Great Recession, threatening to become the Greatest Depression, and he wants to call "okay, you can all come out now" and make their thieving of American jobs legitimate.

As the report "The True Unemployment Rate" linked in the "Breaking News in Politics" forum's "The Bureau of Labor and Statistics - Exposed!" thread pointed out, the real unemployment rate in America is 13.16%, 18.55% if you count under-employment, you know, under-employment, like the carpenter who was replaced by three illegal aliens for aggregately less money than they were paying him, and now he barely survives as a part-time Home Depot clerk.

Just wait until Obama's amnesty takes hold, and watch the living wage American's used to command, drop like a rock.

The culture of amnesty will make living five families to a three-bedroom house the norm here in America.

That's not something I'm looking forward to.

May the Republican's accept the gauntlet, and continue to just say NO!

why didn't obama do immigration we he had a lock on the congress? pre jan?..thx for coming, I'll be in town all week.

Originally Posted by Imperator

why didn't obama do immigration we he had a lock on the congress? pre jan?..thx for coming, I'll be in town all week.

that speech was the perfect example for the partisan obama. He hit the giant slalom through all the gates of pandering just to try and get all latinos on the team.

fucking pathetic

It seems to me that even amnesty would produce some of the results that the die hard 'send em all back to Mexico' advocates want. Once they are legal, what does that do to their relationship with the employer? To get amnesty and be legal, there would necessarily be some paperwork to be done. I have said repeatedly that we know who and where the illegals are because they pay taxes and SS under fake numbers. But if they were legal, that would put the onus on the employers to pay over the counter, and to pay wages in accordance with labor laws of the US, if they are not currently doing so. In that case, wouldn't it benefit the employer just to use American workers? Wouldn't it also put more taxes into the coffers of the IRS since now they are legal and expect to be paid over the table? And the minute an illegal signed his amnesty paperwork and named his employer, if asked, wouldn't it expose the employers who should be taken to task for hiring and paying illegal workers under the table?

I don't really think amnesty is quite the dud that everyone thinks it to be. However rounding up, trying, and sending them all back would cost hundreds of millions, of not billions of dollars which we do not have and for which we would really get nothing.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

It seems to me that even amnesty would produce some of the results that the die hard 'send em all back to Mexico' advocates want.

I don't really think amnesty is quite the dud that everyone thinks it to be. However rounding up, trying, and sending them all back would cost hundreds of millions, of not billions of dollars which we do not have and for which we would really get nothing.

That is silly. You obviously ignore the ramification of what millions of illegals would do to the voting demographics in the country. Most would vote in the same third world policies which prevent Mexico from advancing above 3rd World status. The policy of wealth redistribution was standard in Mexico since the early 1900's and ALWAYS produces a corrupt crony government. Most advocates want the BORDER secured first and for most. We know we tried the Amensty rout in the past and things only got worse and all the Left spews is drivel like the above post to deflect attention or change the discussion.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

It seems to me that even amnesty would produce some of the results that the die hard 'send em all back to Mexico' advocates want.

I've thought that too .. as if "amnesty" is merely a euphemism for "newly unemployed".

And, of course, these unemployed wouldn't qualify for unemployment insurance payments.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

To get amnesty and be legal, there would necessarily be some paperwork to be done.

Some "outing" of a sort, yes.

But the whole idea of amnesty is that illegals not only become legal, their crime of illegal entry is pardoned as well, right?

And if their crime is pardoned, doesn't that also kind of pardon those who aided and abetted them by hiring them?

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I have said repeatedly that we know who and where the illegals are because they pay taxes and SS under fake numbers.

I've asked before if anyone can really quantify how many illegals are using forged IDs. .. and I've yet to take the time to investigate it myself.

Does anyone really know the percentage of the many millions of illegals who are using forged IDs?

And if they are "successfully" using forged IDs, how can we tell Jose from Adam? Their success in the matter hides their illegality, doesn't it?

So, if that's true, not only don't we know who they are, we don't know where they are either, although a glut of certain surnames in a region may make implications.

The only ones we do really know are the ones we see every day with our own eyes, the ones standing around in front of Home Depot waiting to be picked up for under-the-table work -- no ID required.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

But if they were legal, that would put the onus on the employers to pay over the counter, and to pay wages in accordance with labor laws of the US, if they are not currently doing so.

Indeed it should.

It would not be a bad guess to say illegals are presently mostly being paid below minimum wage where no forged ID is involved.

And where forged ID is involved, minimum wage is all they're likely getting, though I would think any wage too far below average would be a red flag to the INS, but who knows.

But yes, with legality comes a huge pay raise.

And suddenly those employers who "could only afford" to hire illegals are going to find the money to give them all raises???

I don't know .. I would think that a few businesses would thus go under .. but that most of them will "encourage" illegals to retain a pretense of illegality, so that they can continue to behave as if there is no amnesty and pay them peanuts .. and my guess is that, having already been trained to work for peanuts and live five and six families per domicile, many former illegals will play along, thereby betraying their bretheren just to keep from being legally .. unemployed.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

In that case, wouldn't it benefit the employer just to use American workers?

No .. it would encourage a collusion between employers and former illegals to maintain an air of illegality, as I just specified.

It would also encourage a new crop of illegals to come over and keep the illegal culture working for both owners and workers .. which is why even Obama knows that amnesty must come complete with stepped-up fencing and border patrol!

And amnesty would bring with it a reduction of INS raids, lulled by a false sense of security.

Besides, even if some companies can somehow afford to hire illegals at minimum wage, that's all they would do, thereby competitively lowering the wage for American workers.

And former illegals would gladly work for the huge pay-raise to minimum wage, because, you know, they've been trained to be really good .. well, for lack of a better word: communists -- living five and six families to a domicile and all.

So American workers in a field, like carpentry, or plumbing, or bus driving, etc., will all be out on their union-riding butts, while former illegals, smiling obliviously on their way to bank their newfound "wealth", will be the best friend to business trades that owners ever had.

And, always-legal American workers lose, again.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Wouldn't it also put more taxes into the coffers of the IRS since now they are legal and expect to be paid over the table?

Maybe.

But, like legallizing pot to tax it for the same government-funding reason, the unintended consequences, like a spike in traffic fatalities from an increase in people driving while stoned, greatly outweighs the benefits.

In this case, a spike in income reduction formed by the "illegals at minimum-wage" busting of both the explicit and implicit labor unions will drive more always-legal Americans into poverty .. decreasing the taxes they pay .. and likely even to the degree of the governments losing money.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

And the minute an illegal signed his amnesty paperwork and named his employer, if asked, wouldn't it expose the employers who should be taken to task for hiring and paying illegal workers under the table?

Not if amnesty is true amnesty, for all involved.

It wouldn't make sense to pardon some in the crime and not others.

Besides, employers just need to say that, "hey, he had paperwork, and I know you all have trained us in spotting it, but, hey, it was forged really well and we just didn't know ... " .. and, of course, the government, being as poor as a churchmouse, can't afford expensive moot-point investigations, and they won't bother at this point to check into it and levy huge fines, what with the economy needing every business profitable it can get.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I don't really think amnesty is quite the dud that everyone thinks it to be.

I .. disagree.

I think it is a really bad thing.

It will lower working standards in America, contribute to increased poverty, a lower standard of living for scores of millions of always-legal Americans, put more always-legal Americans out of work, continue to clog our city roads and highways far beyond acceptability ...

Our intelligent immigration laws used to facilitate sensible population management that benefited all citizens.

Amnesty violates the intelligence of our immigration laws.

That's bad for every always-legal American citizen in so many ways.

All we need to do is simply enforce existing immigration law .. to the benefit of always-legal American workers.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

However rounding up, trying, and sending them all back would cost hundreds of millions, of not billions of dollars which we do not have and for which we would really get nothing.

True, rounding them up and sending them back to where they belong can be expensive.

Perhaps, then, it would be better to continue to build the border wall, improve identification techniques of forged IDs with increased penalities for forgers, step up INS business raids, quadruple the fines for hiring illegals, void state-paid services for illegals, employ offender-profiling at all levels of law enforcement ... all much cheaper and more effective ways ... of both discouraging foreign scofflaws and encouraging those here to leave on their own at their own expense.

And, from an ethical standpoint, it is better for foreign violators to stop harming U.S. workers with their illegal boundry-transgressing presence, and instead go home and start revolution to improve their life in their home countries.

We did here .. and they can do it there.

Heck, we'd probably even help them.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

And, of course, we all know what Obama means by "immigration reform" ..

.. That's right: amnesty.

One way or the other, he's looking for amnesty.

I just knew electing a Democrat man to the Presidency who is the son of a non-American father, would be just asking for trouble on this subject, and indeed, his inexplicable addiction to amnesty in the midst of this terrible recession he should be more focused on remedying in truly qute troubling.

And here we are in the midst of the Great Recession, threatening to become the Greatest Depression, and he wants to call "okay, you can all come out now" and make their thieving of American jobs legitimate.

As the report "The True Unemployment Rate" linked in the "Breaking News in Politics" forum's "The Bureau of Labor and Statistics - Exposed!" thread pointed out, the real unemployment rate in America is 13.16%, 18.55% if you count under-employment, you know, under-employment, like the carpenter who was replaced by three illegal aliens for aggregately less money than they were paying him, and now he barely survives as a part-time Home Depot clerk.

Just wait until Obama's amnesty takes hold, and watch the living wage American's used to command, drop like a rock.

The culture of amnesty will make living five families to a three-bedroom house the norm here in America.

That's not something I'm looking forward to.

May the Republican's accept the gauntlet, and continue to just say NO!

IMO, Obama sees the amnesty crowd with two new cards....a union membership and voter registration.

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

that speech was the perfect example for the partisan obama. He hit the giant slalom through all the gates of pandering just to try and get all latinos on the team.

fucking pathetic

I'm amazed that anyone bothers to listen to this empty suit obama clown

Smoke and mirrors and verbal stinkum, who wants to listen to this pinhead ?