Rick wrote: LOL, wow, lets try this again: if a NON-CITIZEN crossed the border a month ago and are living in your friend's basement, how hard would it be to convince the government that you've actually been here for 5 years and are eligible to get a SS card and legally work here?
You like to talk a lot about feelings and perspectives Z... in THIS thread I'd like to talk about the facts of what Obama has just done... how it will be enforced, who gets to stay, what getting a SS# will mean, how it may or may not effect our own poor, etc.. I'm not trying to trick you into making a statement you may regret, I'm just wanting to talk about how this will all play out.
So is there anything wrong with the question I posed... is it not relevant?
No, I don't think it is, in fact, relevant. Again, read the text of the executive action. The facts of what Obama has done are as outlined in the article to which I provided a link in a previous post.
Where in the text of the executive action does it state how we know who has been here for 5 years or more? Can you tell me or is this a government secret "we have to give them a SS card before we find out how long they've been here"... that doesn't sound far fetched anymore.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: Where in the text of the executive action does it state how we know who has been here for 5 years or more? Can you tell me or is this a government secret "we have to give them a SS card before we find out how long they've been here"... that doesn't sound far fetched anymore.
From the article:
Accountability – Criminal Background Checks and Taxes: ThePresident is also acting to hold accountable those undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. By registering and passing criminal and national security background checks, millions of undocumented immigrants will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time.
There's more on accountability later in the text, but you're going to have to go to the article, itself, in order to read it.
This isn't perfect by any stretch. If I'm not mistaken, even Obama said that in his speech. This executive action is temporary if, and/or until, Congress gets the cajones to pass their own immigration reform legislation. I believe Obama's intent all along in doing this was to push Congress to act one way or the other. Constitutionally, Congress always has the authority to override this executive action. That, to me, is the system of checks and balances our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution specifically for situations like this one.
Best I can do on the text - at least at this point in time: blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/20/text-o...-immigration-action/
The link provides a White House press release issued prior to the signing of the actual executive order. I am sorry, but at this point I have lost all faith in the ability/likelihood of the current White House to post anything, other than the actual signed order, that does not contain 'spin' and even outright lies.
If you are going to demand that comments about the executive order require that someone has read the executive order, then that executive order, NOT something that purports to represent what might be in that order, must be available for reading, IMO.
If that executive order is not available to be read, then your comment about reading the full text of that executive order is out of line, IMO.
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
Best I can do on the text - at least at this point in time: blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/20/text-o...-immigration-action/
The link provides a White House press release issued prior to the signing of the actual executive order. I am sorry, but at this point I have lost all faith in the ability/likelihood of the current White House to post anything, other than the actual signed order, that does not contain 'spin' and even outright lies.
If you are going to demand that comments about the executive order require that someone has read the executive order, then that executive order, NOT something that purports to represent what might be in that order, must be available for reading, IMO.
If that executive order is not available to be read, then your comment about reading the full text of that executive order is out of line, IMO.
A press release contains content of the executive action, not order. There is a difference. This is what is available at this time. The White House website has the same thing as in the link I shared. If that's not good enough until the actual text is released (I'd expect that any time in the next few days), then I'm sorry.
Along with that site, the "official" position would appear to be thus:
These are common sense steps, but only Congress can finish the job. As the President acts, he’ll continue to work with Congress on a comprehensive, bipartisan bill—like the one passed by the Senate more than a year ago—that can replace these actions and fix the whole system.
As far as "demanding that comments about the executive order (actually action) require that someone has read the executive order (actually action)" is concerned, I don't believe I "demanded" anything. Nor did I require anyone to read the article I shared. When the actual text becomes available, I'll try to share the link here.
You know as well as I do the question being asked has no viable answer.
I totally disagree. IMO, the question asked should have been carefully considered, and the likelihood of the situation described being used to circumvent the purported intent of the executive order should have been very carefully evaluated prior to the executive order being signed. I have no clue whether this in fact was done, and the likelihood evaluated as being minimal, or whether it was deliberately designed to allow a loophole in the order.
As I said before, I have no faith in the honesty/transparency of this administration, based upon the clear evidence of the lies/mis-directions/whatever you want to call them that the administration has already engaged in, to believe that this executive order is totally honest and above board. I am afraid that only time is going to show that, but I think the question is totally appropriate to be asked, and it should be given reasonable consideration, rather than being dismissed out of hand, as it appears to me you have done.
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
You know as well as I do the question being asked has no viable answer.
I totally disagree. IMO, the question asked should have been carefully considered, and the likelihood of the situation described being used to circumvent the purported intent of the executive order should have been very carefully evaluated prior to the executive order being signed. I have no clue whether this in fact was done, and the likelihood evaluated as being minimal, or whether it was deliberately designed to allow a loophole in the order.
As I said before, I have no faith in the honesty/transparency of this administration, based upon the clear evidence of the lies/mis-directions/whatever you want to call them that the administration has already engaged in, to believe that this executive order is totally honest and above board. I am afraid that only time is going to show that, but I think the question is totally appropriate to be asked, and it should be given reasonable consideration, rather than being dismissed out of hand, as it appears to me you have done.
Please see my previous post on "accountability".
As far as your comment about having no faith in the honesty/transparency of this administration is concerned, so what? Clear evidence? Bring it forward.
I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I gave it due consideration as deemed by myself that it deserved.
11/21/2014: Obama Scheduled to "Sign" Executive Order for Immigration After Rally at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas Today
Obama has yet to sign his immigration plans into an executive order today in Las Vegas. We want to see the actual text and shape in the form of Executive Order rather than plans. Please stay tuned.
ZHawke wrote: I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I gave it due consideration as deemed by myself that it deserved.
That right there should give you pause enough to re-evaluate whether it's worth the effort to continue this, or any other for that matter, conversation/debate/argument with your opponent.
ZHawke wrote: I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I gave it due consideration as deemed by myself that it deserved.
That right there should give you pause enough to re-evaluate whether it's worth the effort to continue this, or any other for that matter, conversation/debate/argument with your opponent.
ZHawke wrote: I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I gave it due consideration as deemed by myself that it deserved.
That right there should give you pause enough to re-evaluate whether it's worth the effort to continue this, or any other for that matter, conversation/debate/argument with your opponent.
Why? Everyone does it. That's what these forums are all about - stating our opinions and hoping to get into a discussion/debate to prove we are right. That some play by one set of rules and others play by another set does NOT require that anyone play by anyone else's rules except as required by the owner of this site.
Should it bother anyone that when questions are asked, some are answered but others are not? I see it all the time. We try to paint each other into a neat little box from which we believe our adversary (using that term very loosely here) cannot possibly escape. When someone responds with something others consider to be denial and/or deflection, we tend to take sides depending upon where our own personal biases take us.
For some, offering an apology when proven wrong is anathema to them. For others, dodgeball is the answer. And, still for others, apologies are forthcoming. In my short time back in this forum, I have yet to see very many apologies from anyone, including myself. I have apologized in the past. I will do so again if proven wrong. I will not, however, apologize to accommodate someone else's discomfort over what I consider to be their irrational, unreasonable questions regarding inconsistencies and/or what I consider to be possible fallacies in some of the posts I see.
Time and effort are qualitative in the end. Your comment does nothing but give me reason to believe you think my comments/opinions, etc., aren't worthy of inclusion. I could say the same thing about all the comments/opinions offered previously by others, both here and in every other post in The Courthouse. But I won't do that.
Kind of makes me wonder if these forums are "worth the effort", especially since so many of the efforts I see from so many others could be interpreted as efforts to drive others with differing views away.
When someone responds with something others consider to be denial and/or deflection, we tend to take sides depending upon where our own personal biases take us.
