Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 10, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
-
The president out of step with the majority of the country, again.
Half of Americans Oppose Obama's Immigration Lawsuit
Saturday, 10 Jul 2010
WASHINGTON – Half of Americans reject President Barack Obama's lawsuit against Arizona's controversial immigration law, with only a third supporting the move, according to a Gallup poll.
With key midterm elections just around the corner in November, the Obama administration is facing strong support for the law, which makes it a crime to be in the state -- bordering Mexico -- without proper immigration papers.
"Emotions run high on both sides of the issue," Gallup said. "The substantial majority of those in favor and those opposed to the lawsuit say they feel strongly about their position."
It noted that those who followed news about the law most closely were most likely to oppose it.
Obama's Democratic administration is seeking an injunction through the Justice Department to stop the Arizona law from going into effect on July 29, slamming it as unconstitutional, abusive and divisive.
Nearly eight in 10 Republicans (79 percent) opposed the lawsuit, while 56 percent of Democrats were in favor of the Obama administration's decision.
Overall, 50 percent of Americans said they were against the move, compared to 33 percent in favor.
Other polls have also shown strong national support for Arizona's measure, the first law making illegal immigration a state crime.
"The Obama administration is sailing against the tide of public opinion in its efforts to block the law, although members of Obama's own party certainly support the administration," Gallup said.
But the political implications of the federal government's decision are "difficult to predict with precision" with less than four months remaining before legislative and gubernatorial elections, it added.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/illegal-immigration-lawsuit-gallup/2010/07/10/id/364274
-
The Iraq War was right... even when the majority of Americans opposed it.
-
when the war in iraq started and war was declaired, 69% of america supported it so try again
by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll Managing Editor
For nearly his entire presidency, Americans have given George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of foreign affairs than for his handling of the economy. By way of comparison, ratings of the elder George Bush showed a similar-- but more pronounced -- division, but ratings of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were generally similar on the two dimensions.
So far in his administration, George W. Bush has averaged a 63% approval rating on foreign affairs, and a 55% approval rating on the economy. This is not surprising given that the economy has been slow throughout Bush's tenure in office, but he has had some visible international successes in the war on terrorism and in Iraq. As the graph below shows, Bush's ratings on the two measures were running about even until the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At that time, both ratings spiked, but the spike was larger for Bush's foreign affairs rating than for his economic rating. And since that time, Americans have continued to rate Bush more positively on foreign affairs than on the economy. His most recent approval ratings, taken from a May 5-7 Gallup Poll, are 68% on foreign affairs and 53% on the economy.
it took g.b 4-5 years before he saw 50% and below. everything bam bam does hasnt even started at 50% and he hasnt even been in office 2 years. hmmmmmmm!!!!!!!
-
when the war in iraq started and war was declaired, 69% of america supported it so try again
Gallup Poll: Iraq War A "Mistake," Says 58 % Of US Public
Jul 17, 2009
I see... so the INITIAL support for Immigration bill is all that matters? :)
-
when the war in iraq started and war was declaired, 69% of america supported it so try again
by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll Managing Editor
For nearly his entire presidency, Americans have given George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of foreign affairs than for his handling of the economy. By way of comparison, ratings of the elder George Bush showed a similar-- but more pronounced -- division, but ratings of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were generally similar on the two dimensions.
So far in his administration, George W. Bush has averaged a 63% approval rating on foreign affairs, and a 55% approval rating on the economy. This is not surprising given that the economy has been slow throughout Bush's tenure in office, but he has had some visible international successes in the war on terrorism and in Iraq. As the graph below shows, Bush's ratings on the two measures were running about even until the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At that time, both ratings spiked, but the spike was larger for Bush's foreign affairs rating than for his economic rating. And since that time, Americans have continued to rate Bush more positively on foreign affairs than on the economy. His most recent approval ratings, taken from a May 5-7 Gallup Poll, are 68% on foreign affairs and 53% on the economy.
it took g.b 4-5 years before he saw 50% and below. everything bam bam does hasnt even started at 50% and he hasnt even been in office 2 years. hmmmmmmm!!!!!!!
Don't try and confuse people with the facts.
-
Don't try and confuse people with the facts.
I am sorry beach lol what was i thinking ;D
-
Gallup Poll: Iraq War A "Mistake," Says 58 % Of US Public
IMO, and in the opinion of most getbiggers, 58% of Americans were WRONG in this case, right?
-
yes i know that was said years later, i am talking about when it started. my point is at the start of the war g.b had 69% of americans support, everything obama does he has never had 50% at the start. and as we learned with bush it goes down hill from there, so where do you think bam bams approval will be on this lawsuit 6 months from now?? it took bush 4-5 years before americans disapproved of the war as much as they disapprove of everything obama does before he even does it.
-
yes i know that was said years later, i am talking about when it started. my point is at the start of the war g.b had 69% of americans support, everything obama does he has never had 50% at the start. and as we learned with bush it goes down hill from there, so where do you think bam bams approval will be on this lawsuit 6 months from now?? it took bush 4-5 years before americans disapproved of the war as much as they disapprove of everything obama does before he even does it.
actually, I thought it was something like 70% or something higher.... support for this AZ bill.
So if we're down to only half of americans against the continuance of the bill.
That's a 40% support (or so) drop in a month?
-
i dont know the current numbers that support the az bill i just looked and i see 68-74% on just about every poll i can find . i also saw polls that varied 39-47% support bam bams lawsuit
-
if support for the bill (which should be close to those who oppose this lawsuit) has dropped 20 points... that's a huge deal.
It means that 40% of the people who liked this bill don't like it anymore.
If 40% of supporters change their mind on it within a summer, it sure doesn't bode well for when this bill kicks in, and we start to see (exagerrated but nonetheless visible) daily reminders of this bill being abused.
-
240 - just talk to the average guy out there, they hate obama and illegal aliens and amnesty and appluad AZ. Its only people who are borderline schizo like yourself on this who are opposed to the AZ law but somehow rationalize leg breaking no questions asked.
-
I travel the country every week and i have yet to find someone who supports anything bam bam does, and i talk to all ages genders race, guess i need to go to the welfare office to find his supporters
-
Obama vs. Arizona: The President is fighting a reckless war that will backfire politically
NY Daily News ^ | 07/08/10 | Andrea Tantaros
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 1:50:32 AM by KentTrappedInLiberalSeat tle
The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states' rights.
While some legal Latinos will buy the concern that the bill could lead to racial profiling - an outcome the Arizona law strictly forbids - most likely voters are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. Even if some find the Arizona law abhorrent, it won't likely be enough to counter the majority of Americans who side with the Grand Canyon State and would favor a similar law in their own states.
According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted May 6 to 9, nearly six in 10 voters favor the Arizona legislation, the broadest support in favor of the requirement that people produce documents verifying their legal status. A whopping 86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats and 73% of independents back that provision.
When it comes to immigration, most Americans want the border secured first and foremost. But securing the border would take the immediacy of the immigration issue off the table. You see, Obama needs the border as a carrot to pass a larger bill in Congress that gives amnesty.
Think about it. What sounds better: "The Protect Our Borders Now Act" or the "Amnesty for Everyone Bill"? Without serious provisions that address border security, any such legislation is unlikely to pass, particularly if the GOP gains seats in the fall or takes control of the House of Representatives, something Obama is expecting, with the help of Hispanics, not to happen.
And so, in an effort to maintain and expand the Democratic base, Obama risks support within it. A sharp divide among the unions could ensue as it did in 2007 during the last immigration fight if blue-collar workers believe Obama is favoring illegal aliens who take their jobs and refusing to stand up for the suffering American worker.
With unemployment hovering at almost 10%, a bitter battle between two levels of government is unprecedented and unnecessary. Voters want action on the economy, not more federal government overreaching. A very public power struggle between the President and one of the states in the Union is not likely to play well, especially because it's Washington that has dropped the ball when it comes to tackling the out-of-control issue of illegal immigration.
Declaring war on the State of Arizona is one thing. Declaring war on the State of Arizona while the economy is on the verge of bankruptcy and a double-dip recession is another. Restoring jobs and economic and national security should be the President's top concerns. If he doesn't change course, it'll be him who is on trial next in the court of public opinion.
-
240 - just talk to the average guy out there, they hate obama and illegal aliens and amnesty and appluad AZ. Its only people who are borderline schizo like yourself on this who are opposed to the AZ law but somehow rationalize leg breaking no questions asked.
240 has admitted that he has been shit on more times by whites than minorities - that should tell you something about his mindset. How 240 could even begin to defend illegals just fucking blows my mind. He will probably say it is because there is nothing you can do about it. That is a defeatist attitude. If Americans had this attitude when they fought Britain America would never have won Independence.
-
The Iraq War was right... even when the majority of Americans opposed it.
difference...since we live in America its NOT OK when OUR country gets invaded...
damn rob...
-
I'm just arguing the 'the majority is always right' mentality.
you guys think I'm defending illegals? LMAO! I'm all for brekaing their legs and dropping them at the south tip of mexico.
No, I'm just arguing the "50% of americans agree with it - which proves it is the right thing!" argument. It's a terrible argument. The majority of americans probably once backed a lot of shitty things. I dont like this bill - but that damn sure doesnt mean I like illegals. Ya know? I dislike it because I dont think a single legal americans should be 'detained' for "only" having a valid state DL. No american should have to carry a birth cert. That's some bullshit.
It's not about defending illegals. You can catapult the proven illegals back over the border for all I care. Find a way to bust them without violating the rights of legal americans. They catch millions already every year WITHOUT this law, right? Do your job feds, kick them out, period.
-
The Iraq War was right... even when the majority of Americans opposed it.
How was it right?
They were better off with Saddam. At least with him suicide bomber's entire family would go into the woodchipper and their houses destroyed.
-
I'm just arguing the 'the majority is always right' mentality.
you guys think I'm defending illegals? LMAO! I'm all for brekaing their legs and dropping them at the south tip of mexico.
No, I'm just arguing the "50% of americans agree with it - which proves it is the right thing!" argument. It's a terrible argument. The majority of americans probably once backed a lot of shitty things. I dont like this bill - but that damn sure doesnt mean I like illegals. Ya know? I dislike it because I dont think a single legal americans should be 'detained' for "only" having a valid state DL. No american should have to carry a birth cert. That's some bullshit.
It's not about defending illegals. You can catapult the proven illegals back over the border for all I care. Find a way to bust them without violating the rights of legal americans. They catch millions already every year WITHOUT this law, right? Do your job feds, kick them out, period.
The lawsuit is a joke and this admn is doing it solely to try to stop states from kicking these invaders out.
-
The lawsuit is a joke and this admn is doing it solely to try to stop states from kicking these invaders out.
Agreed - if the feds had done their job, AZ wouldn't have had to enact this legislation.
But the point of this thread - the % must be right - is a flawed point. The majority is wrong at times.
-
It's doubtful a majority of Americans even know what the federal law suit is about.
-
I'm just arguing the 'the majority is always right' mentality.
you guys think I'm defending illegals? LMAO! I'm all for brekaing their legs and dropping them at the south tip of mexico.
No, I'm just arguing the "50% of americans agree with it - which proves it is the right thing!" argument. It's a terrible argument. The majority of americans probably once backed a lot of shitty things. I dont like this bill - but that damn sure doesnt mean I like illegals. Ya know? I dislike it because I dont think a single legal americans should be 'detained' for "only" having a valid state DL. No american should have to carry a birth cert. That's some bullshit.
It's not about defending illegals. You can catapult the proven illegals back over the border for all I care. Find a way to bust them without violating the rights of legal americans. They catch millions already every year WITHOUT this law, right? Do your job feds, kick them out, period.
LOL so youre for breaking illegals legs before deporting them but youre against being able to ascertain if they are illegal? ::) ::) ::)
cool so how do we know who is illegal?
americans shouldnt have to carry a birth cert youre right but they shouldnt have to b/c the states should require proof of citizen ship to obtain legal id...call your state representatives and get them to enforce the laws...
you say we can catapult proven illegals back but you dont give us a way of proving they are illegal ::) ::) ::)
-
cool so how do we know who is illegal?
curerntly, without the AZ law, we catch millions of illegals each year, right?
(actually deporting their asses doesn't happen quick enough, of course)
-
I'm just arguing the 'the majority is always right' mentality.
you guys think I'm defending illegals? LMAO! I'm all for brekaing their legs and dropping them at the south tip of mexico.
No, I'm just arguing the "50% of americans agree with it - which proves it is the right thing!" argument. It's a terrible argument. The majority of americans probably once backed a lot of shitty things. I dont like this bill - but that damn sure doesnt mean I like illegals. Ya know? I dislike it because I dont think a single legal americans should be 'detained' for "only" having a valid state DL. No american should have to carry a birth cert. That's some bullshit.
It's not about defending illegals. You can catapult the proven illegals back over the border for all I care. Find a way to bust them without violating the rights of legal americans. They catch millions already every year WITHOUT this law, right? Do your job feds, kick them out, period.
Thats funny,because just about every post you put up about Obama you quote polls showing his approval rating.I guess polls are only relevant when they back up your points.Care to look at the polls that support his stimulus plan and if it created jobs.Last time I looked that was at 6%.I guess everyone is wrong.
-
Gallup Poll: Iraq War A "Mistake," Says 58 % Of US Public
IMO, and in the opinion of most getbiggers, 58% of Americans were WRONG in this case, right?
Now, what this before or AFTER folks actually got the true facts?
Me thinks it was definitely BEFORE!
-
Now, what this before or AFTER folks actually got the true facts?
Me thinks it was definitely BEFORE!
The UN told us there were no WMD *before* we invaded. They scoured Saddam's homes and bathrooms and every spot they wanted - and found zero.
It just took longer for some ppl to accept this fact.
-
curerntly, without the AZ law, we catch millions of illegals each year, right?
(actually deporting their asses doesn't happen quick enough, of course)
so you think we are doing a good enough job 240?
I think its obvious we arent so something else needs to be done in order to identify them BEFORE they break ANOTHER law...but hey if youre content on waiting for them to break ANOTHER law before we can identify them its whatever...
-
It's toxic because the majority of the country supports what Arizona is doing.
Governors: Obama's Immigration Suit Is 'Toxic'
Published July 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com
AP
Democratic governors expressed "grave" concerns to White House officials this weekend about the Obama administration's suit against Arizona's new immigration law, warning it could cost the party in crucial elections this fall, The New York Times reported late Sunday.
The closed-door meeting took place at the National Governors Association in Boston on Saturday, according to two unnamed governors who spoke to the Times.
"Universally the governors are saying, 'We've got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on,'" Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was quoted as saying. "It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats."
The Arizona law, which is facing a U.S. Justice Department challenge, requires police to question people about their immigration status while enforcing other laws if there's reason to suspect someone is in the country illegally.
"I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time," Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat, was quoted by the Times as saying. "This is an issue that divides us politically, and I'm hopeful that their strategy doesn't do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met privately with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the immigration bill into law last month, for a half-hour on Sunday.
Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona, ignored a request for comment following their meeting, but Brewer said the two did not discuss the lawsuit. Instead, she said they had a cordial conversation centered on her efforts to win Arizona more National Guard troops to guard its border with Mexico, as well as her plea for reconnaissance helicopters and more unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings.
Attorney General Eric Holder, meanwhile, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the federal government was leading with its "strongest" argument in the suit filed Tuesday and would not rule out a second suit months down the road -- if the law ends up going into effect.
"It doesn't mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had ... and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact," Holder said. "If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis."
The lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Arizona claimed the state was infringing on federal immigration responsibilities and urged the judge to prevent the law from going into effect at the end of July. Despite some officials' claims that the law could lead to racial profiling, that concern was not cited as grounds for the suit.
Rallying around Gov. Brewer at the Boston meeting, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska told the Times: "I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona's."
The White House did not directly respond to the Times report of complaints from Democratic governors.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/governors-obamas-immigration-suit-toxic/
-
so you think we are doing a good enough job 240?
I think its obvious we arent so something else needs to be done in order to identify them BEFORE they break ANOTHER law...but hey if youre content on waiting for them to break ANOTHER law before we can identify them its whatever...
we do a fine job catching them - it's deporting them that is the prob.
Busted illegals should be kicked out in a week... not this 6 months of appeals bullshite
-
we do a fine job catching them - it's deporting them that is the prob.
Busted illegals should be kicked out in a week... not this 6 months of appeals bullshite
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
LOL so we have an estimated population of around 20 million illegals in this country right?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/dhs-corrects-report-that-overs.html
"The 387,790 illegal immigrants removed by ICE in fiscal 2009" of whom 136,116 had criminal convictions...so youre saying that catching 251,674 a year without having to wait for them to break the law is doing a fine job?
sooooooooooo youre ok with only deporting 1.9% of the illegal population a year? thats a satisfactory job to you?
dumb ass why dont you educate yourself on this issue 240? youve done nothing but shoot from the hip and make ignorant assumptions since the arizona law...
-
"The 387,790 illegal immigrants removed by ICE in fiscal 2009"
What % of those determined to be illegal are actually "removed" each year?
-
What % of those determined to be illegal are actually "removed" each year?
well seeing as we have an estimated 20 millionish you take 387,790 and you divide it by 20 million
so.....
387,790
20,000,000
= 1.93%
is that doing a "fine job" to you?
-
Respectfully, I disagree with 2 of your points- that there are indeed 20 mil, and that the # of jobs available doesn't affect them staying:
The Department of Homeland Security reported that illegal immigrant population dropped to 10.8 million in 2009 compared to 11.6 million in 2008. It was the second consecutive annual decline and the largest in at least three decades.
According to the report, the downturn in illegal immigration is due in part to the bad economy, in which job opportunities have dried up. Homeland Security department spokesman Matthew Chandler told the paper that the U.S. had also deployed "unprecedented resources" to crack down on illegal immigration.
From DHS report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/11/national/main6197466.shtml
Seven percent of illegals in the USA left voluntarily last year, due to lack of jobs.
And - if they kicked out 387,790 illegals last year - that means almost 4% were kicked out.
Soooooo if we can boot 5 to 10% each year without violating the rights of any americans who "only" carry a Cali DL, then yes, it's effective!
-
Respectfully, I disagree with 2 of your points- that there are indeed 20 mil, and that the # of jobs available doesn't affect them staying:
The Department of Homeland Security reported that illegal immigrant population dropped to 10.8 million in 2009 compared to 11.6 million in 2008. It was the second consecutive annual decline and the largest in at least three decades.
According to the report, the downturn in illegal immigration is due in part to the bad economy, in which job opportunities have dried up. Homeland Security department spokesman Matthew Chandler told the paper that the U.S. had also deployed "unprecedented resources" to crack down on illegal immigration.
From DHS report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/11/national/main6197466.shtml
Seven percent of illegals in the USA left voluntarily last year, due to lack of jobs.
And - if they kicked out 387,790 illegals last year - that means almost 4% were kicked out.
Soooooo if we can boot 5 to 10% each year without violating the rights of any americans who "only" carry a Cali DL, then yes, it's effective!
LMAO so you went from 4% to 10% how did you make that jump?
LOL again ok so just for shits and giggles we will go with your number(even though its just as likely mine is correct)
Soooo youre saying that booting 3.6%(not 4%) is a "fine job"?
taking into account that almost half of that 387,790 had criminal charges? so catching 251,674 illegals without them breaking the law is doing a "fine job"?
to the 2nd point I agree with you if you read the article it actually acknowledges that aspect but my point is disprove what MANY including yourself have said that removing employers will eliminate the problem...
-
another tid bit for you 240...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/dhs-corrects-report-that-overs.html
"Separately, ICE reported that as of Feb. 1, four months into fiscal 2010, total removals are running at a rate 20 percent below last year, or 17 percent lower counting only deportations."
is this what you consider doing a "fine job"?
LMFAOROTFC no wonder you always think obama is doing a good job... ;)
so at this rate we will deport 2.88% of the illegals in this country a model of efficiency ::) ::) ::) and a very "fine job" if you ask 240... ;)
-
The combination of economic voluntarily leaves + deportations = somewhere between 7% (the drop in 2009, or 11.6 mil to 10.8 mil) and 11% (the maximum total of this 7% plus the approx 4% of deports).
that's why I put 5% - a very conservative low number. Hell, if 5% left every year, I think most americans would be happy. Without a single fired shot. Without a single american on the curb because his cali ID isn't good enough.
-
we don't have to deport a single one... hell, if 7% of them left WITHOUT ICE shutting down employers... imagine the success if they aggressively went after employers, who in turn started firing them
-
The combination of economic voluntarily leaves + deportations = somewhere between 7% (the drop in 2009, or 11.6 mil to 10.8 mil) and 11% (the maximum total of this 7% plus the approx 4% of deports).
that's why I put 5% - a very conservative low number. Hell, if 5% left every year, I think most americans would be happy. Without a single fired shot. Without a single american on the curb because his cali ID isn't good enough.
LMAO so what happens when the economy turns around 240? ::)
and youre statement was about the number we are deporting not the the number leaving voluntarily...so Ill ask you again do you think that 3.6% of the illegal population being deported last year is a satisfactory number?
-
Issa: Justice lawsuit against Arizona is a 'misuse of the Supremacy Clause'
By Bridget Johnson
07/11/10
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ranking member predicted the Supreme Court would rule such.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Sunday that the Obama administration's decision to sue Arizona over its controversial immigration law is a "miuse of the Supremacy Clause."
Issa also expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would side with the border state.
“The administration can’t have it both ways,” Issa said on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" Sunday. “They can’t have e-verify, they can’t have these programs where they’re supposed to take criminals and pass them over to the federal government if they’re illegally in the country and then say, ‘but if you do it wholesale where it actually works, we’re going to come after you.’
"That’s unacceptable and it’s certainly is a misuse of the Supremacy clause and I’m convinced that the Supreme Court will rule that way - that you can’t stop a state within its rights from asserting its sovereignty in support of federal law as long as they’re some state nexus which they’re clearly is."
Issa also noted that Arizona "is not incarcerating people for being illegally in the country, they’re offering them up to the federal government to take their responsibility."
On charges that the law might lead to racial profiling, he said it was unprecendented to challenge "something because it might lead to something."
"There’s nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won’t do and can be stopped for what it might do…but for the Justice Department to ignore real problems around the country and spend time going after a state who simply says we’re going to self-help consistent with existing federal programs that have been passed by Republican and Democratic presidents – that’s pretty absurd,” Issa said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/108047-issa-justice-dept-lawsuit-is-misuse-of-the-supremacy-clause
-
LMAO so what happens when the economy turns around 240? ::)
and youre statement was about the number we are deporting not the the number leaving voluntarily...so Ill ask you again do you think that 3.6% of the illegal population being deported last year is a satisfactory number?
7% LEFT LAST YEAR N THEIR OWN.
Remove jobs, and 1 in 15 illegals left the USA last year.
Remove a lot more jobs than that thru employer busts. I dont know why anyone minds busting employers that hire illegals.
-
7% LEFT LAST YEAR N THEIR OWN.
Remove jobs, and 1 in 15 illegals left the USA last year.
Remove a lot more jobs than that thru employer busts. I dont know why anyone minds busting employers that hire illegals.
YOUR COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS WE ARE DEPORTING...if they leave on their own we arent deporting them...
so Ill ask you again 240 is a 3.6% deportion rate a year of illegal immigrants what you consider a satisfactory job?
-
YOUR COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS WE ARE DEPORTING...if they leave on their own we arent deporting them...
so Ill ask you again 240 is a 3.6% deportion rate a year of illegal immigrants what you consider a satisfactory job?
I'm still a little unsure - how many illegals were actually caught and determined to be illegals? What % of them (caught and determined to be here illegally) actually get sent home?
-
I'm still a little unsure - how many illegals were actually caught and determined to be illegals? What % of them (caught and determined to be here illegally) actually get sent home?
LOL so at the very least you talked out of your ass without knowing any facts? seems like quite the habit for you ;)
iono how many are determined illegals are in this country 240 but we have 10.6 million(again a conservative number) and only 3.6% were deported last year(again a conservative number)
put aside the number that were determined and look at only the 3.6% 240, is that a satisfactory job considering we have 10.6 million in the US?
-
LOL so at the very least you talked out of your ass without knowing any facts? seems like quite the habit for you ;)
iono how many are determined illegals are in this country 240 but we have 10.6 million(again a conservative number) and only 3.6% were deported last year(again a conservative number)
put aside the number that were determined and look at only the 3.6% 240, is that a satisfactory job considering we have 10.6 million in the US?
Without knowing any facts? I asked you.
I asked early on what % of those actually CAUGHT were kicked out?
Nobody can answer this.
And we didn't just lose 3.6% of them last year.... we lost 7% (by DHS numbers) because the jobs dried up.
-
Without knowing any facts? I asked you.
I asked early on what % of those actually CAUGHT were kicked out?
Nobody can answer this.
And we didn't just lose 3.6% of them last year.... we lost 7% (by DHS numbers) because the jobs dried up.
so youre saying that when you made this comment you had no idea what the numbers where?we do a fine job catching them - it's deporting them that is the prob.
Busted illegals should be kicked out in a week... not this 6 months of appeals bullshite
well then by all means do tell us what you were basing your judgement on....
-
yeah, sorry bro. 7% yearly is good for me. I demostrated that's happening.
you don't know what % get removed of those caught... so your argument we dont do enough... well, have fun with it. You started a thread about employment, I made my point, and here we are.
-
yeah, sorry bro. 7% yearly is good for me. I demostrated that's happening.
you don't know what % get removed of those caught... so your argument we dont do enough... well, have fun with it. You started a thread about employment, I made my point, and here we are.
LMAO so what happens when the economy turns back around 240 and the 4% that left voluntarily turns into 4% more coming in?
so you think 3.6% is a satisfactory job?
you made an ignorant point even if it stayed at 7% you really think thats satisfactory? honestly? ::) ::) ::)
I dont have to know I know that only 3.6% conservatively get deported every year...thats not nearly enough for a person of rational intelligence...even if only 10% of those identified are deported wouldnt it make sense then to identify more so that way more get deported? ;)
again the ppl against this bill have no idea of the ins and outs of the immigration problem let alone any first hand knowledge of the problem...go educate yourself 240 :(
-
So 3.6 out of every 100 get deported. That's a STELLAR job. ::)
-
So 3.6 out of every 100 get deported. That's a STELLAR job. ::)
LMAO gotta love the idiocy on this board from time to time....
-
7% left last year because there were less jobs.
That's WITHOUT a nationwide ICE employer mission.
You put one of those into place, and a lot more than 7% will leave (on their own!)
Or, you can keep giving BJs to crooked cops so they'll accept your cali ID, give up your rights, etc etc... that's cool.
however, it's pretty funny that DOUBLE the number of illegals left VOLUNTARILY than the number who was DEPORTED last year.
-
Usually, when the Federal Government opposes something it's a sure sign that it's in the peoples interest to support it.
e.g. Marijuana, Gun Laws
-
7% left last year because there were less jobs.
That's WITHOUT a nationwide ICE employer mission.
You put one of those into place, and a lot more than 7% will leave (on their own!)
Or, you can keep giving BJs to crooked cops so they'll accept your cali ID, give up your rights, etc etc... that's cool.
however, it's pretty funny that DOUBLE the number of illegals left VOLUNTARILY than the number who was DEPORTED last year.
lol love how you use 7% instead of 4% now ::) ::) ::)
LOL again going after employers will not fix the problem you uninformed moron!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is only part of the solution...so what happens when the economy turns around 240?
dont talk to me about giving up rights brain child...thats a weak ass argument and whats worse is its all you have...
"however, it's pretty funny that DOUBLE the number of illegals left VOLUNTARILY than the number who was DEPORTED last year."
ya it is pretty funny, whats funnier is you still think that they are doing a fine job deporting illegals... ::) ::) ::)
-
Fox News Poll: Most Oppose Government Suit Over Arizona Law
By Dana Blanton
Published July 15, 2010
FoxNews.com
AP
(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./071510_brewer_397x224.jpg)
June 29: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer strongly backs a state law concerning illegal immigration that will go into effect at the end of July.
Most American voters oppose the U.S. Justice Department's challenge of Arizona's new immigration law. A slim majority, moreover, favors passage of similar laws in their own states.
A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by a wide 59-29 percent margin, voters oppose the federal government suing the state of Arizona over its immigration law.
Democrats are more likely to favor the government's lawsuit by a 12 percentage-point margin (50-38 percent). Independents are more likely to oppose it by a substantial 30-point margin (58-28 percent), while Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the lawsuit by a striking 71-point margin (80-9 percent).
Click here to read the poll.
Arizona's new law, which goes into effect at the end of July, allows state, county, and local law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone stopped on suspicion of a crime — from traffic stops to felonies — and detain anyone who cannot prove his or her immigration status. The Justice Department says Arizona's immigration law is unconstitutional and filed a suit challenging it on July 6.
A 55 percent majority of voters say they would favor their own state passing an immigration law like Arizona's. Just over a third — 34 percent — would oppose it. Two months ago, 52 percent favored and 31 percent opposed their state passing a similar law (May 2010).
Those living in the South (62 percent) and the West (59 percent) are more likely to favor a law like Arizona's in their state than those in the Northeast (51 percent) or Midwest (46 percent).
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from July 13 to July 14. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Which party do voters think would do a better job handling immigration? Republicans (45 percent) have a 13-point edge over Democrats (32 percent) on the issue.
Most Republicans — 78 percent — think their party would do a better job on immigration. Democrats have less party loyalty on this issue: 63 percent think their own party would do a better job, while 19 percent say Republicans would.
Click here for the raw data.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/15/fox-news-poll-oppose-government-suit-arizona-law/
-
Independents are more likely to oppose it by a substantial 30-point margin (58-28 percent),
Interesting.
Assuming Obama will keep the liberals and the GOP 2012 canddiate will automatically keep the conservatives...
Obama's position on this bill is identical to that of Independents - the voters he (and the other candidate) needs to win.
The 2012 repub candidate's position on this huge bill will be at odds to the position of most independent voters... interesting...
-
Independents are more likely to oppose it by a substantial 30-point margin (58-28 percent),
Interesting.
Assuming Obama will keep the liberals and the GOP 2012 canddiate will automatically keep the conservatives...
Obama's position on this bill is identical to that of Independents - the voters he (and the other candidate) needs to win.
The 2012 repub candidate's position on this huge bill will be at odds to the position of most independent voters... interesting...
Are you drinking wine today?
-
Independents are more likely to oppose it by a substantial 30-point margin (58-28 percent),
Interesting.
Assuming Obama will keep the liberals and the GOP 2012 canddiate will automatically keep the conservatives...
Obama's position on this bill is identical to that of Independents - the voters he (and the other candidate) needs to win.
The 2012 repub candidate's position on this huge bill will be at odds to the position of most independent voters... interesting...
??? The poll is about opposition to Obama's lawsuit against Arizona. Independents oppose the lawsuit by a wide margin.
-
Are you drinking wine today?
That or smoking the ganja.
-
That or smoking the ganja.
Jack Cafferty even said Obama is insane to pursue this.