DescentBB

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/31/ ... -pass.html



....demanding that the President act alone after suing him for doing so. So, we now see the REAL issue. It isn't that Obama has issued executive orders(less than 1/3 of Eisenhower, less than 10% of Teddy Roosevelt, by comparison), it's that he issues orders that the GOP House doesn't agree with.
What hypocrites! And, even more laughable, they even seem to think Obama has a magic wand and can just tell the kids from Central America to stop coming.

Assuming executive orders are the only way for the White House to take actions.

He could stop 'telling them' they can stay.

He could not go down there to sign them up for permission to come.

He could stop interpreting a law designed to give sanctuary to victims or witnesses to sex trafficking and slavery cases that are PENDING in court as an excuse to allow anyone who wants to enter to do so.

He could stop increasing the backlog of deportation by no longer telling the departments to hold off on processing cases and instead go back and review past cases to see if there are any who have been slotted for deportation that will now be allowed under his new rules.

He could stop making public statements that he was going to unilaterally 'declare' amnesty if congress won't.

There are just a whole lot of common sense things that he can do, all without a magic wand, *IF* he really wanted to stem the tide. But we all know that isn't what he wants to accomplish...which makes the true motive of your post most apparent and the title of it quite ironic.

Look like his Republican Hate-on is showing to me. lets talk hypocrisy

Will Robinson wrote:He could stop 'telling them' they can stay.

the law demands it of children, for a period of time. Please cite me where he told them 'they could stay'.

He could not go down there to sign them up for permission to come.

he went down, personally? Please, again, find me one piece of evidence that ANYONE went 'down there to sign them up' for anything.

He could stop interpreting a law designed to give sanctuary to victims or witnesses to sex trafficking and slavery cases that are PENDING in court as an excuse to allow anyone who wants to enter to do so.

show me where the law says anything about such limitations.

He could stop increasing the backlog of deportation by no longer telling the departments to hold off on processing cases and instead go back and review past cases to see if there are any who have been slotted for deportation that will now be allowed under his new rules.

both have to be done. Show me how there is funding to do it faster, which requires hiring of people to process paperwork. He just submitted such a request to Congress, who failed to act. As always.

He could stop making public statements that he was going to unilaterally 'declare' amnesty if congress won't.

he suggested that such was a possibility. But, that has to do with long term employed residents. Doesn't exactly address the issue of younger refugees entering the country, now, does it?

There are just a whole lot of common sense things that he can do, all without a magic wand, *IF* he really wanted to stem the tide. But we all know that isn't what he wants to accomplish...which makes the true motive of your post most apparent and the title of it quite ironic.

so, your solution to all our current immigration issues is for Obama to not do things that you can produce utterly no proof that he ever did in the first place? Heck, most of the above is based upon long-proven falsehoods by your right-wing handlers. Not much of a help there, Will.

so wait!!!! you NOW want to president to start obeying the immigration laws?????

CUDA wrote:so wait!!!! you NOW want to president to start obeying the immigration laws?????

he has been.......whether you choose to spin it otherwise. The issue is that there is NO WAY to follow the welter of laws, given the staffing, funding, or varying levels of local cooperation. The current laws are a patchwork, that doesn't work. If you think Obama is somehow violating the law, spell it out, and don't go and make up facts like old Will just tried to do.

slick, I say he should stop 'telling them' by way of the list I gave you...
I'm not making up anything, I have showed you where the law said that, and Bidens sponsoring the changes that make it vague yet it still doesnt cover that which Obama is using it for!

"going down there" doesnt mean in person. It means his new pilot program he announced where representatives of the US government will go down there....

and the rest of your excuses are just as weak...and you know it so please stop playing stupid. Or are you really not paying any attention at all, just relying on MSNBC to tell you what to believe?

links or you're lying, Will. You know damned well that everything you cited was either a lie or an exaggeration. Prove otherwise.

callmeslick wrote:links or you're lying, Will. You know damned well that everything you cited was either a lie or an exaggeration. Prove otherwise.

I already linked it a couple days ago. Get up to speed slick...,turn off msnbc and turn on your brain.

Also noteworthy…(I meant to post this in my first post, but I had to get moving this morning).

The lawsuit is not about the president using his constitutionally granted powers to do his job…but is instead about the deliberate circumvention of congress, which is seen by some there as unlawful. (perception or otherwise)

This president is not the first one to use executive orders, but is the first one in my memory that brags and rubs it in the face of the congress.

Personally I think the lawsuit is stupid and probably a bluff, but then again, I don’t have the ego of an elected official.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:links or you're lying, Will. You know damned well that everything you cited was either a lie or an exaggeration. Prove otherwise.

I already linked it a couple days ago. Get up to speed slick...,turn off msnbc and turn on your brain.

and, I pointed out that it was a collection of falsehoods, suppositions and exaggerations, at the time. I was hoping you had real facts instead of right wing bullet points. My bad.

WAIT!!!!!!!
You call him a liar unless he posts links. Then you admit he posted links but you dismiss them because they dont meet your standards.

WOW how do you debate with that kind of stupid?

there is a certain bit of irony in title topic " hypocrisy 101" with that post

I posted the text of the law.
If that is a rightwinger talking point then the rightwing is citing actual law.

Which illustrates slicks method of operation - 'If an opponent says something it must be untrue.

Which explains why slick is often wrong but never admits it.

you cited no law, you had no proof to back up so much as one of your goofy claims. Just a bunch of made-up garbage. Repeating it isn't going to make it more correct.

I didn't make up the law. It was written during Clinton's administration and the text of it is clearly designed for a specific purpose... to facilitate protection for, and inticement for cooperation from, foreign victims and witnesses to sex trafficking and slave trafficking to testify in court against the criminals charged with those crimes.

I'll wager you will find 99.9% of the 'children' crossing the border, being given back door amnesty incorrectly under the umbrella of that law, don't actually qualify for the purposes the law was conceived and written. I imagine that is the main reason the access to those people has been so controlled. They don't want countless interviews of people citing word of 'Obama's permisos' as their motive for deciding to leave home to come here.

Your proclaiming something is untrue has no weight when common sense and a simple examination of the actual law so easily dismiss your claims as nothing but noise. So huff and puff all you want, the brick wall you are attacking won't be toppled by your arrogance and hot air.

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't make up the law. It was written during Clinton's administration and the text of it is clearly designed for a specific purpose... to facilitate protection for, and inticement for, foreign victims and witnesses to sex trafficking and slave trafficking to testify in court against the criminals charged with those crimes.

where is the text of that within the law?

I'll wager you will find 99.9% of the 'children' crossing the border, being given back door amnesty incorrectly under the umbrella of that law, don't actually qualify for the purposes the law was conceived and written. I imagine that is the main reason the access to those people has been so controlled. They don't want countless interviews of people citing word of 'Obama's permisos' as their motive for deciding to leave home to come here.

bs, anectdotal and not at all consistent with legitimate agencies(UN and US) published interviews. Also, please show any data indicating that a significant percentage of those arriving have been granted refugee status.

Your proclaiming something is untrue has no weight when common sense and a simple examination of the actual law so easily dismiss your claims as nothing but noise. Huff and puff all you want the brick wall you are attacking won't be toppled by your arrogance and hot air.

you are, in this very thread, continuing to spout lies and made up stuff, along with your usual dose of 'watch what happens, I'll betcha(fill in the blank)'. In other words, you would do well not to accuse others of noise, hot air or the like. You are peddling pure manure, and the reek is pretty obvious.

Prove it slick, here is the law. Inspite of claims to the contrary it was conceived, authored and put into effect before Bush during Clinton's administration. It has been reauthorized by Bush and reauthorized and expanded under Obama.

But even in its current form it doesn't have that which you claim it does. It DOES however, have in it what I said it does....and more to the point...it doesn't have a 'permiso' for anyone who claims to be afraid of their home countries economic conditions...and it doesn't have the laughable connection the Obama administration is using in which any one who can say they are a guardian of a 'child' or family of said child will also recieve sanctuary.

But you are certainly free to try and prove otherwise. Please use more than your bluster and arrogance to show us though. Use this law that you think I made up....

look carefully at section B, title V. and remember the words in the synopsis of the bill, as follows: and for other purposes. They took the care to put those words after the stuff about domestic abuse and trafficking.

while focusing on the law used to protect kids, you haven't touched on a host of other assertions, which you've repeated here and have been debunked before:
1. That Obama sent emmissaries to Central America to recruit immingrants
2. That the Administration advertised benefits for illegal aliens
3. That administration policy is cited by substantial numbers of children entering the country.
And so on......similar to vision's observation in the gun thread, you tend to use a lot of what ifs, exaggerations and outright falsehoods to dance around unpleasant details.

"for other purposes" Lol That's all you have?!?
When was that put in and when did anyone start using this law that is designed to offer sanctuary for foreign witnesses to give sanctuary to anyone who claims general fear from their current living conditions?!?

even if that string of 3 words authorizes, on a technicality, what Obama is doing. And it doesn't. But even if it did, he is lying when he says its all George Bushs fault for this law that is forcing him to let things get out of control when he is the only one to try and find such a loophole and exploit it!!

no wonder you are scrambling now to change the subject below...

callmeslick wrote:while focusing on the law used to protect kids, you haven't touched on a host of other assertions, which you've repeated here and have been debunked before:
1. That Obama sent emmissaries to Central America to recruit immingrants

The white House announced a pilot program to go down to Honduras to sign people up if they qualify for these new, 'loose as hell definitions' of the sex crimes protection act. They said they will expand the practice as needed to other countries.
this makes the second time I've told you this. And the second time I say, get up to speed on what your team is doing...or quit playing dumb...whichever is the case.

callmeslick wrote:2. That the Administration advertised benefits for illegal aliens

I posted the link, and someone else did as well, about the omnibus spending bill in which the lead Dem on the panel promised they would take out the part that authorized the spending for that purpose in foreign countries. Instead they merely put in the language that they recommend the spending for that be stopped....and, as I said before...we know now that the recommendation was useless and the spending continued. I believe I linked the text from a Mexican soap opera broadcast from Mexico that had the welfare commercials where the one actress was urging the other actress's character to apply for welfare even though she said her husband makes enough money...saying it was her right to take the money...
I think Jeff Sessions was the congressman who was pissed off at the way the dem woman failed to live up to her promise...you can find it if you want. I'm not posting stuff a second and third time just because you cant, or wont, pay attention.

callmeslick wrote:3. That administration policy is cited by substantial numbers of children entering the country.

Lol! Trying to set up some moving goal posts there? "substantial numbers"?!? Well Obama wont even tell us how many are entering so how does one determine 'substantial'? It is reported enough that "Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson penned an op-ed for Spanish-language news outlets over the weekend vowing there will be no “permisos” or “free passes” for illegal immigrant children who are jumping the border."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z39TyrzBAP

He wouldn't have to go around saying it if it wasn't 'a thing'....
The talk about Obama unilaterally creating amnesty is rampant and he certainly owns a lot of responsibility for getting that word out there! You can deny that all you want. You have done dumber stuff before.

As to your weak attempt to paint me as wildly speculating.
There is a difference between wild speculation and betting that the Dems will benefit from this, especially since they are bragging about it to their fund raising groups.
It isn't wild to say what many in government are saying which is, most of these newcomers will never show up for a court date and never leave the country.
It isn't wild at all to say it.
What is wild is that you so boldly deny what your Party is doing as if the other people here don't see it too!

Will Robinson wrote:"The white House announced a pilot program to go down to Honduras to sign people up if they qualify for these new, 'loose as hell definitions' of the sex crimes protection act. They said they will expand the practice as needed to other countries.
this makes the second time I've told you this. And the second time I say, get up to speed on what your team is doing...or quit playing dumb...whichever is the case.

they did no such thing, nor have you been able to produce the announcement.

I posted the link, and someone else did as well, about the omnibus spending bill in which the lead Dem on the panel promised they would take out the part that authorized the spending for that purpose in foreign countries. Instead they merely put in the language that they recommend the spending for that be stopped....and, as I said before...we know now that the recommendation was useless and the spending continued. I believe I linked the text from a Mexican soap opera broadcast from Mexico that had the welfare commercials where the one actress was urging the other actress's character to apply for welfare even though she said her husband makes enough money...saying it was her right to take the money...
I think Jeff Sessions was the congressman who was pissed off at the way the dem woman failed to live up to her promise...you can find it if you want. I'm not posting stuff a second and third time just because you cant, or wont, pay attention.

as I pointed out the first time, you have no such evidence, or video clip or anything. You have Jeff Session's version of reality. Given that Sessions has demonstrated lack of comprehension of his own language, I'm suspecting he can't understand Spanish either. Once again, hearsay, no proof.

then, I note, you move to guesswork, innuendo and bad logic. Not exactly a strong case there......

example of how completely this garbage can be debunked:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/is_obam ... _mexicans/

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:"The white House announced a pilot program to go down to Honduras to sign people up if they qualify for these new, 'loose as hell definitions' of the sex crimes protection act. They said they will expand the practice as needed to other countries.
this makes the second time I've told you this. And the second time I say, get up to speed on what your team is doing...or quit playing dumb...whichever is the case.

they did no such thing, nor have you been able to produce the announcement.

No?

Well don't click here then because it proves you are full of crap.....again....

callmeslick wrote:...then, I note, you move to guesswork, innuendo and bad logic. Not exactly a strong case there......

example of how completely this garbage can be debunked:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/is_obam ... _mexicans/

What you moved on to is your complete and blatant use of a straw man. I never claimed anything of the sort. So well done on proving nothing other than you have a really weak foundation to stand your argument upon.

Will Robinson wrote: Well don't click here then because it proves you are full of crap.....again....

they said they were weighing it, but no evidence that anyone ever went down there. You claimed they were actively recruiting people for refugee status. That article suggests nothing past pre-screeing for eligibility. Big difference.

What you moved on to is your complete and blatant use of a straw man. I never claimed anything of the sort. So well done on proving nothing other than you have a really weak foundation to stand your argument upon.

you were the one who brought the matter, and Sessions' claims up. I guess you will wait for the final reports on all of this before accepting such stupid claims as true, huh? Because that is your threshold elsewhere.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Well don't click here then because it proves you are full of crap.....again....

they said they were weighing it, but no evidence that anyone ever went down there. You claimed they were actively recruiting people for refugee status. That article suggests nothing past pre-screeing for eligibility. Big difference.

Rriigghhhtttt.
I'm pretty sure I said they announced it. They did. You said there was no such thing. You were full of crap. Now you want to move the goal posts....
Typical slick dodge.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:What you moved on to is your complete and blatant use of a straw man. I never claimed anything of the sort. So well done on proving nothing other than you have a really weak foundation to stand your argument upon.

you were the one who brought the matter, and Sessions' claims up. I guess you will wait for the final reports on all of this before accepting such stupid claims as true, huh? Because that is your threshold elsewhere.

I never said Obama was giving welfare to people in Mexico. You had to introduce that because what I did say, that they were using tax dollars to advertise how to qualify for welfare type assistance in foreign markets, is a claim that is proven true as evidenced in the frikken federal budget...with assorted congressional food fighting going on about it.

You're tactics are helping me more than they are you. Thanks.

Will Robinson wrote:I never said Obama was giving welfare to people in Mexico. You had to introduce that because what I did say, that they were using tax dollars to advertise how to qualify for welfare type assistance in foreign markets

which is a proven lie. They have not, ever done so. They advertise at CONSULATES, which are on US soil, but listed as 'foreign' because they are the property of sovereign nations. Pretty simple stuff when you actually look at the facts, instead of the garbage your puppetmasters feed you.


,

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I never said Obama was giving welfare to people in Mexico. You had to introduce that because what I did say, that they were using tax dollars to advertise how to qualify for welfare type assistance in foreign markets

which is a proven lie. They have not, ever done so. They advertise at CONSULATES, which are on US soil, but listed as 'foreign' because they are the property of sovereign nations. Pretty simple stuff when you actually look at the facts, instead of the garbage your puppetmasters feed you.


,

As long as you stop following the money at the consulate door you can say the advertising doesn't get done outside of America. Of course if you tune into Mexican soap operas you will see advertising that teaches incoming illegals that they can apply for assistance without fear of deportation/status detection, etc.

What you choose to believe is up to you.

Tell me slick, if it isn't going on why in the world would the Dem committee chair (pretend to ) agree to take that out of the legislation that funds it!

Never mind I don't need your contrived response I can already see you twisting up a typical non responsive reply.

Me thinks the audience is the critical aspect here, not the fact that is in on “American soil”…

That's the best one I have heard in a while, and where do you think the information goes next?

LOLOL

utter nonsense. First off, no benefits are eligible to be paid until one is legally resident in the US for 5 years. That is the law.
Second, they simply paid for flyers and brochures for the consulates to use because(you'd know this if you ever had friends working abroad)consulates serve legal residents or visitors to the nation, and thus use the consulate services. Once again, easier to badmouth me that deal in facts, huh, Will?

Spidey wrote:Me thinks the audience is the critical aspect here, not the fact that is in on “American soil”…

That's the best one I have heard in a while, and where do you think the information goes next?

LOLOL

see above. Consulates around the world do similar for their citizens abroad. Nice of you to join the guesswork bandwagon, and depart from reality.
Do you people ever encounter folks who work abroad? Have you ever had to deal with an embassy when travelling abroad? Why is it that you are ready to jump to goofy conclusions over the role of the Mexican Consulates in the US, but can produce exactly ZERO knowledge of what a consulate does?

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Me thinks the audience is the critical aspect here, not the fact that is in on “American soil”…

That's the best one I have heard in a while, and where do you think the information goes next?

LOLOL

see above. Consulates around the world do similar for their citizens abroad. Nice of you to join the guesswork bandwagon, and depart from reality.
Do you people ever encounter folks who work abroad? Have you ever had to deal with an embassy when travelling abroad? Why is it that you are ready to jump to goofy conclusions over the role of the Mexican Consulates in the US, but can produce exactly ZERO knowledge of what a consulate does?

typical slick, avoiding all the relevant distinctions...like all embassies dont use OUR tax dollars for it...and...the efforts are resulting in a coming swarm of extra illegals crossing over...that they were warned about (but subsequently pretended to be surprised)...and tried to blame Bush for the law that had never caused this until Obama decided to bastardize it to facilitate the very thing he says is not his fault......you know..real world stuff that he likes to play dumb about and instead he tries to change the topic by spouting off like some expert on 'general foreign consulate' operations...
Pathetic spin slick, pathetic all around.

Will Robinson wrote: typical slick, avoiding all the relevant distinctions...like all embassies dont use OUR tax dollars for it..

first learn the difference between a consulate and an embassy and then rejoin the adult conversation.
.

and...the efforts are resulting in a coming swarm of extra illegals crossing over...that they were warned about (but subsequently pretended to be surprised)...and tried to blame Bush for the law that had never caused this until Obama decided to bastardize it to facilitate the very thing he says is not his fault.....

repeating that same string of disproven lies doesn't make them any truer than they were yesterday.

.you know..real world stuff that he likes to play dumb about and instead he tries to change the topic by spouting off like some expert on 'general foreign consulate' operations...
Pathetic spin slick, pathetic all around.

funny, considering the source!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: ...and...the efforts are resulting in a coming swarm of extra illegals crossing over...that they were warned about (but subsequently pretended to be surprised)...and tried to blame Bush for the law that had never caused this until Obama decided to bastardize it to facilitate the very thing he says is not his fault.....

repeating that same string of disproven lies doesn't make them any truer than they were yesterday.

*I have shown where the extra illegals are coming...as if anyone doubts it ... I cite the President as a source for crying out loud: "Humanitarian crisis"

*I have shown that the Obama administration was warned of the increase months before. In fact I have seen the FOIA disclosures that show Obama's administration was seeking private sector contractors to provide transportation for 65,000+ children/illegals. The work to be performed for the time that we saw them start to swarm in...
They knew damn well what was coming. The Mexicans told them, the South American countries told them, their own departments told them...ICE, Border Patrol, State Department...

* I have shown you the law was written before Bush was in office and given you the text which you failed miserably to refute. I can show you how even as recently as last week CNN was referring to it as a "Bush law" and of course there are numerous quotes of Obama citing that law as 'having tied his hands'. Never, before Obama got involved, was that law used to give sanctuary to people not material to the testimony in a pending sex or slave trade criminal trial. Never.

Yet you say all that has been proven untrue.
Really? By what?! Your big bag of wind?
What have you provided to prove anything?

Show us slick. Show us how all the substance I provided to support what I said is trumped by your proclamation that it didn't happen!

Time after time you declare things to be untrue and I will never tire of making you prove it because you always fail to support your claims with anything but bluster or weak parsing of language to try and hide your failures.

For some reason, I'm compelled to post these.

http://canada.usembassy.gov/ambassador/ ... sador.html

In most countries with which it has diplomatic relations, the U.S. maintains an embassy, which usually is located in the host country capital. The U.S. also may have consulates in other large commercial centers or in dependencies of the country. Several countries have U.S. ambassadors accredited to them who are not resident in the country. In a few special cases--such as when it does not have full diplomatic relations with a country--the U.S. may be represented by only a U.S. Liaison Office or U.S. Interests Section, which may be headed by a Principal Officer rather than a Chief of Mission.

The Chief of Mission -- with the title of Ambassador, Minister, or Chargé d'Affaires -- and the Deputy Chief of Mission head the mission's "country team" of U.S. Government personnel. Responsibilities of Chiefs of Mission at post also include:

Speaking with one voice to others on U.S. policy--and ensuring mission staff do likewise--while providing to the President and Secretary of State expert guidance and frank counsel;
Directing and coordinating all executive branch offices and personnel (except for those under the command of a U.S. area military commander, under another chief of mission, or on the staff of an international organization);
Cooperating with the U.S. legislative and judicial branches so that U.S. foreign policy goals are advanced; security is maintained; and executive, legislative, and judicial responsibilities are carried out;
Reviewing communications to or from mission elements;
Taking direct responsibility for the security of the mission -- including security from terrorism -- and protecting all U.S. Government personnel on official duty (other than those personnel under the command of a U.S. area military commander) and their dependents;
Carefully using mission resources through regular reviews of programs, personnel, and funding levels;
Reshaping the mission to serve American interests and values and to ensure that all executive branch agencies attached to the mission do likewise; and
Serving Americans with professional excellence, the highest standards of ethical conduct, and diplomatic discretion.



http://winnipeg.usconsulate.gov/about-u ... ulate.html

The Consulate in Winnipeg, like most diplomatic posts, serves a few basic functions.

First and foremost the Consulate exists to explain and advance U.S. policy to the broadest possible audience in Manitoba. Second, the Consulate reports to U.S. policymakers at the Embassy in Ottawa and in Washington about developments and opinions in Manitoba that affect the U.S.-Canada relationship.Third, we work to advance bilateral trade and commercial activities. And while we do not normally provide services to the general public, we do provide emergency services to American citizens in the province as required.

We undertake these activities by building strong relationships throughout the province with federal, provincial, and local government officials, as well as with a myriad of commercial interests, non-governmental organizations, service clubs, academia, artistic groups and others.

Issues the consulate has focused on in the past include cross-border water environmental disputes, BSE, and border security.


The locations may differ, but the functions are essentially the same. The Consulate is part of the Embassy, but the Embassy is not part of the Consulate. Part of your Embassy course 101.