From the NYT:
Obama Will Seek Citizenship Path in One Fast Push
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 12, 2013 482 Comments
WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.
Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats will propose the changes in one comprehensive bill, the officials said, resisting efforts by some Republicans to break the overhaul into smaller pieces — separately addressing young illegal immigrants, migrant farmworkers or highly skilled foreigners — which might be easier for reluctant members of their party to accept.
The president and Democrats will also oppose measures that do not allow immigrants who gain legal status to become American citizens one day, the officials said.
Even while Mr. Obama has been focused on fiscal negotiations and gun control, overhauling immigration remains a priority for him this year, White House officials said. Top officials there have been quietly working on a broad proposal. Mr. Obama and lawmakers from both parties believe that the early months of his second term offer the best prospects for passing substantial legislation on the issue.
Posts
44 comments:
Good news, millions of new natural conservatives!
Turns out the Republic won't end when the people realize they can vote themselves money; it will end when the political elites realize they can vote themselves new constituencies.
Or, roughly several weeks from now.
There is a significant difference in the feel of the times selected comments on this article and the reader selected comments. The latter seem far more restrictionist.
I think isteve should put together a digest of the most salient immigration facts. Like, how many millions of third world immigrants have come in legally and illegally, how many millions of democrat votes does that equal, how many billions of welfare benefits have been paid, etc.
Obama wants more immigration from south of the border because he knows Pancho Villa is not a natural Republican, if you get what I am saying.
You don't see Obama demanding for more immigration from Eastern Europe, because he knows most of their future off springs would vote Republican or Libertarian and not Democrat.
BOHICA
All those white blue states voted for Obama and then reelected him in 2012 even after Obama came out for 'gay marriage', illegal invasion, and nominated Sotomayor and Kagan.
Don't blame Obama. He's doing as his Jewish masters order him. Blame all those whites in blue states for supporting him.
Whites in blue states did this to themselves because they are dumb sheep of big media.
But then, what has GOP offered in return. Christian fundie dummies like Bachmann and Santorum. 700 Club. Neocon morons. Wall Street ass kissers.
And libertarians who call for small government didn't seek power in government, and so government is owned by libs.
So... the only thing left is to kill the GOP and have every white person join the Democratic Party and form alliances with moderate whites against Jews and their minions.
There is nothing else left.
Except when you think about it it's not a new people so much as a multitude of new peoples with the resultant inability to mount any form of collective resistance to the elites - divide and rule. And if that division doesn't exist it becomes neccessary to create it.
It sure would be nice if some of these AltRight bloggers with millions of viewers collectively would maybe try to take the narrative away from the neocons and Rubios of the GOP by organzing a counter-movement.
Nah, gotta argue about what to call the "Dark Enlightenment" and impress other bloggers. I'm sure Tancredo et al will pull victory from the jaws of defeat at the last second again.
Mine eyes have seen the glory. All they see now is the decline.
If the Republicans don't stop this, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.
I posted a comment there in which I brought up your point about the earlier wage stagnation article. The NYT actually accepted it. I noticed that someone else did as well. The reader-picked comments were overwhelmingly anti-amnesty. But people who don't really care one way or the other are of course not going to comment. Only when they feel the sting of mass illegal immigration themselves will they pay attention.
@ 2:43 anon
How about you organize a counter-movement it? Personally I don't feel like completely ruining all my, admittedly poor, prospects of future mainstream employment just yet.
Read the comments below the article over there! The citizens are tired of the immivasion. They just got slapped with the payroll tax hike and now this.
There are many liberals waking up on this issue. The comments read like a BACKLASH is brewing.
Watch Obama and the Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pushing Amnesty and Gun Control.
This is like GWB throwing all his political capital away on SS privatization after getting reelected in 2004. Epic fail!!!
Yea lets team up with all those moderate democrats. Better yet lets not vote that will show them. The Republican Party does the best it can running against a culture and media out to get them. Go ahead pick a Conservative party you'd rather have.
And to think there were readers of this blog who stayed home in November because they thought there was no difference between the candidates.
Those with the power will lead and decide.
We aint got the power.
History is the story of power and white folks forget it along the way.
How the mighty fall.
"And to think there were readers of this blog who stayed home in November because they thought there was no difference between the candidates."
In the long run, there isn't. Reagan, Bush, and Bush II didn't stop nothing.
Those with more will power, more righteousness, more zeal, more money, more influence, more determination, and more brilliance win.
Libs just beat cons in all the high-power areas.
It doesn't shock me that Obama said it - it shocks me that Boehner is hinting he'll go along with it. No, wait, that doesn't shock me either...
"And to think there were readers of this blog who stayed home in November because they thought there was no difference between the candidates."
Mitt Romney endorsed amnesty back in 2006-07, and John Boehner is hinting he'll support it now. Perhaps those readers were right.
I wonder how eager Obama would be to do this if those 11,000,000 criminal infilitrators, (oh sorry, that would be those ones in Israel) illegal aliens were likely to vote Republican? Its pretty easy for the Democrats to amnestize future certain Democrat voters.
@ Anon 3:12
Because I'm just another guy with the time to read things on the internet, not an Alt-Right blogger with a pretty big audience and relationships with other Alt-Right bloggers who possibly have a chance at organizing things and has seen this shit coming down the pipeline for months now.
Sorry that was so not obvious I had to point it out.
What were the 10 biggest political mistakes GOP made since 1970?
Extending 'affact' to Hispanics.
Watergate.
Amnesty under Reagan.
George Bush in 1988.
Gulf War. (It now looks that way, and paved the way for Neocon takeover).
George W. Bush.
Cutting Taxes on the rich.
Iraq War.
Wall Street deregulation.
Ownership Society.
Dan Quayle!
"And to think there were readers of this blog who stayed home in November because they thought there was no difference between the candidates."
Mitt Romney endorsed amnesty back in 2006-07, and John Boehner is hinting he'll support it now. Perhaps those readers were right.
Nope. They were morons then and they're morons now.
The American system of government is predicated on the assumption that the voters are not stupid. When they are stupid, bad things happen.
So what happens further down the road if it should be discovered that we actually have about thirty million illegals instead of the twelve-year old figure of eleven million?
Republicans in the House can stop Amnesty and just might because its proposed by Obama.
Romney was FOR Amnesty. If he'd been elected House Republicans would've supported any "reach across the aisle" deal that Mitt made with Harry Reid.
The Republican establishment has been pushing Amnesty forever. Bush II pushed Amnesty in his 2nd Term and McCain was MR. AMNESTY.
[QUOTE]Good news, millions of new natural conservatives![/QUOTE]
Hispanics are so "naturally conservative", that they are the reason Republicans will never again win states like Florida, Nevada, and Colorado in a presidential election.
Hispanics are so "naturally conservative" that they will eventually turn Arizona and Texas into solidly blue liberal states.
You take away middle age and senior citizen Cuban Americans, and there are barely any conservatives left in the Hispanic community.
The younger generation of Cuban American youths of today vote like Mexicans.
As "Aunty Analogue" said, "Mine eyes have seen the glory". I watched "Apollo 13" again the other night. It always made me proud of my country, though now more and more it makes me mourn for it.
Obama succeeded where George W. Bush failed (on three separate occasions).
Rather like the way Obama claimed the glory for the Bin Laden 'double tapping'.
I'm betting this is just so he can sneak in his own name. "See, I am a citizen. Na na na na na !"
Well, at least Truth won't be whining that Reagan was the only president who carried out a large amnesty.
In some ways, this works against the Dems. This ticks off a lot of legal immigrants who worked hard to come the legal route, jumped through all the hoops, filled out all the paperwork, and paid thousands of dollars to the government and immigration lawyers to get their green cards. The problem for the Dems is that these immigrants tend to be brighter and more talented than the ones getting amnesty. Whether they forget about it by the next election remains to be seen.
If you oppose amnesty, this is very good news. Obama is not going to get any grand schemes on anything through the Republican House or a Senate with any sort of filibuster. He might have gotten some smaller immigration "reforms" through such as a limited DREAM act, or more HiTech Visas. But getting the whole open borders fantasy list through Congress, forget about it.
"DaveinHackensack said...
And to think there were readers of this blog who stayed home in November because they thought there was no difference between the candidates."
I didn't stay home. I went to the polls, and voted for someone other than either Obama or Romney. If Romney had been elected, he would be pushing an amnesty right now, and he would have no significant opposition from his own party in Congress.
He likely wouldn't be pushing for gun control however.
Many of you here don't get it. Administrative amnesty means a Presidential declaration of amnesty. The next day, everything changes. They will be able to legally vote for amnesty..again and again. They will have the demographic clout to impose their will on White America. King Jorge Bush gave Anne Dunhams' son the legal right to be a defacto Monarch with the divine right of a King.
A very dangerous situation could-will emerge when reality sets in. Millions of White Americans will have their fate in the hands of nonwhites. This is not just talk. White Americans will experience the loss of self-determination every day they wake-up. It's not childs play any more. It's as real as real can get.
If Obama fails to get Congress to approve this across-the-board amnesty, I wouldn't be surprised if he just goes ahead and decrees it, the way he did when Congress wouldn't pass his DREAM act. As he did then, he'll say he's just redeploying law enforcement resources more efficiently.
The prestige media will support him in this by ostracising dissent.
The Orwellian propaganda campaign has begun. Colin Powell calls the effort to legalize 11 million illegal infiltrators the "tweaking" of immigration policy.
" If Romney had been elected, he would be pushing an amnesty right now"
Oh, I highly doubt that. Even if Romney wanted amnesty (and there's no evidence to suggest he was wedded to it in the same way as Bush or Obama), he'd still have the goal of winning reelection ahead of him. Obama doesn't.
"and he would have no significant opposition from his own party in Congress."
Even more doubtful. If the GOP Congress opposed W on amnesty, why wouldn't they oppose Romney?
"He likely wouldn't be pushing for gun control however."
For the same reason he wouldn't be pushing for amnesty. Romney seeks consensus, and would have governed more conservatively in the White House than he did in liberal MA.
unless we go bankrupt and the rats abandon ship
'natural conservative' - noun: Liberal.
"Well, at least Truth won't be whining that Reagan was the only president who carried out a large amnesty. " - He does that? Clinton was responsible for 6 amnesties totally about 7M people.
DaveinHackensack said...
"If Romney had been elected, he would be pushing an amnesty right now""
"Oh, I highly doubt that. Even if Romney wanted amnesty (and there's no evidence to suggest he was wedded to it in the same way as Bush or Obama),"
Actually, there was lots of evidence that his so-called hard-line stance in the primaries was nothing but a tacticul ploy. He jettisoned one of his top advisors on immigration after he had the nomination sewn up, and called for deemphasizing the issue thereafter. I don't think he ever brought it up during his campaign. His only mention of it in the debates was his statement that we should staple a green-card to the diploma of every foreign student.
"he'd still have the goal of winning reelection ahead of him."
And he would win it. Or at least, that would not be the cause of his losing it. Who are Republicans going to vote for? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? As long as conservatives play the part of a captive electorate for the GOP, the GOP will continue to take their votes, spit in their faces, and then pat them on the head.
""and he would have no significant opposition from his own party in Congress.""
"Even more doubtful. If the GOP Congress opposed W on amnesty, why wouldn't they oppose Romney?"
Becaue parties seldom oppose their President in their first term - especially early in their first term.
Anyway, it's a moot point now. Romney is nothing more now than a commemorative plate on the sideboard of some old Republican lady.
romney would not be pushing for amnesty right now. that's just stupid.
leaving aside the fact that he wouldn't even be in office right now, since he'd be waiting for the end of obama's term, the first thing he would be doing is working on how to maintain the GW bush federal income tax rates while financing it by eliminating various deductions and, most importantly, reducing federal government spending from it's current ludicrous level. he'd be preparing his first budget. you know, something obama has not submitted in FOUR YEARS. another first for president zero. has never happened before, ever.
then he would move on to scaling back parts of PPACA, and reducing the corporate income tax rate, so that GDP growth could get above the anemic 1% which obama has locked the US into, well, perhaps permanently. obama and bernanke virtually assure the US is stuck in ZIRP in perpetuity.
the last thing he would do is start out his second term by raising federal income taxes, then going after guns, then going after amnesty.
remember, in this scenario, romney WON. he wouldn't win then IMMEDIATELY go hardcore leftist. in this scenario, the republicans have returned to the white house, and can still win national elections without giving amnesty to 12 million mexicans to "make them like us".
no way on earth does romney win in 2012 then immediately go after amnesty. the reason obama is immediately going after amnesty is because so many stupid republicans instantly bought into the idea that they lost because mexicans don't like them, and that they'll like them if they allow them to all become citizens. democrat strategists are simply trying to strike while the iron is hot, get the republicans to agree to amnesty while they're deluded, in a stupor, and ready to assent to anything.
they have to get this done while boner is still in control of the house, because boner WANTS to surrender on every issue.
what's happening right now is that the hardcore leftist won, and with no possibility for re-election, he stepped on the gas, looking to go in for the kill, and destroy the old america forever. if you think this is exactly what romney would have done you don't know what you're talking about.
Mr. Anon,
" Who are Republicans going to vote for? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton?"
If Hillary came out against amnesty, I actually think a lot of Republicans would vote for her over a RINO.
"DaveinHackensack said...
If Hillary came out against amnesty, I actually think a lot of Republicans would vote for her over a RINO."
If. If she came out publicly in favor of women getting married, staying at home and raising a family, a lot of conservatives might vote for her too. And that's about equally as likely as your scenario.
No, like whipped dogs, Republican voters will continue to vote for any Republican politician, no matter how hostile they are to their interests.
By the way, Paul Ryan, Romney's boy-wonder, and who quite possibly would have been appointed to head up some kind of presidential commision on immigration reform if Romney had been elected, just endorsed Marco Rubio's position on amnesty.
"jody said...
romney would not be pushing for amnesty right now. that's just stupid."
It's what Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan are pushing for RIGHT NOW.
Post a Comment