U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2009, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Where laws can be ignored due to political correctness
1,111 posts, read 1,582,143 times
Reputation: 267

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
...and for exactly the same reasons-

if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it.
But rewarding that bad behavior gets you plenty of political influence and dominance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2009, 10:59 PM
 
23,873 posts, read 17,577,017 times
Reputation: 12760
Quote:
Originally Posted by antireconquista View Post
But rewarding that bad behavior gets you plenty of political influence and dominance.
of course. politicians wouldn't consider it if there weren't side benefits [i.e., votes].
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 11:45 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,271 posts, read 15,238,189 times
Reputation: 7876
Why is this being reported in only the Washington Times? Most articles it publishes heavily criticize Obama. Notice the language?

"Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year"

Isn't it only May?

"Republicans say the shift is a sign that Mr. Obama, who during the campaign repeatedly called the issue a priority, is uncertain how to move forward."

Then the article continues to quote several of Obama's critics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 11:52 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,271 posts, read 15,238,189 times
Reputation: 7876
I just answered my own question. It was the headline that threw me. Here's another article about the same issue which makes more sense to me.

[url=http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/view/101759]Los Angeles Chronicle | Obama Administration in Sync on Immigration Dollars and Sense[/url]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 11:56 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,013,914 times
Reputation: 17978
Quote:
Originally Posted by antireconquista View Post
Including those pathetic church officials who are some of the worst offenders but many of them are able to evade justice because politicians fear the loss of their votes and influence.

Any church official who is caught aiding and abetting illegal aliens should be prosecuted, have his/her church closed and have his/her tax deductions revoked.
Plus all those civia gropus who help tehm out without reporting thewm. But wait that includes many federal officals. Oh well;throw them in jail too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 01:45 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,699,632 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
of course. politicians wouldn't consider it if there weren't side benefits [i.e., votes].
The problem is, the pro-illegal side is not going to be satisfied with anything less than a blanket amnesty and unlimited immigration. They are demanding "family reunification" because if just one person is in the USA illegally, it's imperative that his elderly grandparents, parents, siblings, children, cousins, aunts, uncles, second cousins, third cousins and all the in-laws be allowed to come here to reunify with him.

The pro-illegal side wants welfare handouts, unemployment benefits, social security checks, Medicaid and Medicare, free college for any one who wants to come here and get in on the amnesty.

Anything less and they will be angry and keep pushing on. In their minds, foreign citizens living here illegally must control the political process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 04:33 AM
 
7,020 posts, read 9,895,366 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
But so far, even as he puts off a target date for signing a comprehensive bill, he has kept the support of immigrant rights groups, who applaud his changes at the Department of Homeland Security and say he's still committed to their top priority - a bill that would legalize most illegal immigrants.
He realizes that as long as his "commitment" does not go beyond his usual verbal hispandering he won't be run out of office on a rail. Things are really bad for a large population of Americans on many fronts and I have no doubt that every political hack in office gets daily reminders from their constituents via email and jammed voicemail boxes. They all know that things can and will turn ugly on a dime if they even think about cramming another amnesty down our throats.

The last thing Obama wants to deal with is an uprising of angry Americans and rioting throughout the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Why is this being reported in only the Washington Times? Most articles it publishes heavily criticize Obama. Notice the language?

"Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year"

Isn't it only May?

"Republicans say the shift is a sign that Mr. Obama, who during the campaign repeatedly called the issue a priority, is uncertain how to move forward."

Then the article continues to quote several of Obama's critics.
Just as most articles in the Washington Post and the NY Times have a ‘sob’ slant, and are highly biased in favor of illegal immigration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
I just answered my own question. It was the headline that threw me. Here's another article about the same issue which makes more sense to me.

Los Angeles Chronicle | Obama Administration in Sync on Immigration Dollars and Sense
It probably “makes more sense to you" because you share their stance on illegal immigration. It’s human nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 07:07 AM
 
7,020 posts, read 9,895,366 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Just as most articles in the Washington Post and the NY Times have a ‘sob’ slant, and are highly biased in favor of illegal immigration.



It probably “makes more sense to you" because you share their stance on illegal immigration. It’s human nature.


Exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 12:13 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,271 posts, read 15,238,189 times
Reputation: 7876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Just as most articles in the Washington Post and the NY Times have a ‘sob’ slant, and are highly biased in favor of illegal immigration.


It probably “makes more sense to you" because you share their stance on illegal immigration. It’s human nature.
Not at all. I believe in having airtight borders as I've said previously on this board. I also don't want to grant amnesty to illegals.

Both articles were slanted - one criticizing, one praising. It would be nice to read the facts without a reporter's personal bias, but you're right about human nature. However, in the case of the Washington Times, he added a lot of unnecessary personal jabs..just my opinion. I said the headline didn't make sense, because I don't see a lot of flip-flopping at all. It's like an article I read that said Obama lied when he said he'd have troops out of Iraq immediately. But he didn't say that at all. He said he'd begin withdrawing troops immediately with a timetable. So even the liberals exaggerate when they're unhappy! Again, I mentioned that saying something hasn't been accomplished or the president has "backed off" when the man has been in office for less than 4 months is a bit of a stretch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top