Obama just lost all the votes from the pot smokers on the west coast

[OUHOMER]

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-feds-target-pot-dispensaries-202853739.html

no more medical pot

[OUHOMER]

I will post it for you

..SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation's burgeoning medical marijuana industry, California's four U.S. attorneys sent letters Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The attorneys are scheduled to announce their coordinated crackdown at a Friday news conference.

Their offices refused to confirm the closure orders. The Associated Press obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to 12 San Diego dispensaries. They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."

"Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions," letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego read. "Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary."

The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana following a two-year period during which federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors' recommendations.

The Department of Justice issued a policy memo to federal prosecutors in late June stating that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws. The effort to shutter California dispensaries appears to be the most far-reaching effort so far to put that guidance into action.

"This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The Administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office," Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president's drug czar who is a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Substance Abuse Solutions. "The challenge is to balance the scarcity of law enforcement resources and the sanctity of this country's medication approval process. It seems like the Administration is simply making good on multiple statements made previously to appropriately strike that balance."

Greg Anton, a lawyer who represents a Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said the 14-year-old dispensary's landlord received an "extremely threatening" letter Wednesday invoking a federal law that imposes additional penalties for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

The landlord was ordered to evict the pot club or risk imprisonment, plus forfeiture of the property and all the rent he has collected while the dispensary has been in business, Anton said.

The Marin Alliance's founder "has been paying state and federal taxes for 14 years, and they have cashed all the checks," he said. "All I hear from Obama is whining about his budget, but he has money to do this which will actually reduce revenues."

..

[MR2-Sooner86]

Legalize it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ridiculous.

The state of California should be free to do whatever the f'k it wants within its own borders without having the jack booted Federal thugs marching into the state like the Wehrmacht conquering Paris.

[okie52]

So Obama will prosecute potheads but won't do anything about sanctuary cities or illegals.

[marfacowboy]

Way to go, Obomba. Glad we're cracking down on those pot smokers. Maybe he should watch the PBS special on prohibition. He wouldn't look nearly as stupid.

[TUSooner]

So now Obama rejects all the good (libertarian) aspects of modern liberalism and embraces its worst aspects (that reckless health care plan) as well as the worst aspects of neo-conservatism (hawkism, puritanism, and bailing out stupid banks). He gots nuthin'.

[OUHOMER]

So Obama will prosecute potheads but won't do anything about sanctuary cities or illegals.
exactly what i was thinking. No need to enforce all the laws at once, i guess

[sappstuf]

This won't hurt Obama too much. Those potheads can never remember what day the election is on anyway... ;)

[okie52]

exactly what i was thinking. No need to enforce all the laws at once, i guess

Hopefully he doesn't call out the drones.

[Serge Ibaka]

Why only California?

[Caboose]

This won't hurt Obama too much. Those potheads can never remember what day the election is on anyway... ;)

There are certain demographics that are going to vote for Obama regardless of what he does. I don't see this hurting him.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So Obama will prosecute potheads but won't do anything about sanctuary cities or illegals.


more lies.

They broke the record on the number of deportations for the third year in a row....over 400,000 deportation per year.

How many of you dope heads did he convict?

[JohnnyMack]

Obama. Traitor to his party.

[SicEmBaylor]

This won't hurt Obama too much. Those potheads can never remember what day the election is on anyway... ;)

This is actually true. I remember watching CNN on election night in '08 when one of their reporters was at a group having a watch party in support of that state referendum on legalizing pot. Of course everyone there was high as a kit and passing around joints right in front of the camera. The reporter goes around asking them about the election and almost everyone he talked to forgot to actually vote. They were too high to turn out.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

This is actually true. I remember watching CNN on election night in '08 when one of their reporters was at a group having a watch party in support of that state referendum on legalizing pot. Of course everyone there was high as a kit and passing around joints right in front of the camera. The reporter goes around asking them about the election and almost everyone he talked to forgot to actually vote. They were too high to turn out.

and of course California voters defeated Prop 19, that attempted to legalize pot, in spite of federal law.

[diverdog]

Obama. Traitor to his party.

Oh there are just as many right wingers who do drugs as lgeft wingers. Surely Rush and W prove that point.

[sappstuf]

Oh there are just as many right wingers who do drugs as lgeft wingers. Surely Rush and W prove that point.

Ted Kennedy snickers from beyond the grave at those two amateurs.

[TUSooner]

So Obama will prosecute potheads but won't do anything about sanctuary cities or illegals.

Where do you get this horse-*** "information"? That's just wrong. Federal courts, especially in Texas, are jam-packed will illegal alien prosecutions. I see this with my own 2 eyes every workday. Stop believing BS propaganda just because you want agree with it.

[pphilfran]

Where do you get this horse-*** "information"? That's just wrong. Federal courts, especially in Texas, are jam-packed will illegal alien prosecutions. I see this with my own 2 eyes every workday. Stop believing BS propaganda just because you want agree with it.

Sanctuary cities?

[TUSooner]

Sanctuary cities?
What's your question? Can you give me a legal defintion of sanctuary city? Are the feds supposed to impose martial law and go house to house in these ill-defined places looking for illegals? Should mayors and city councils be prosecuted? Perhaps if we move the border to north of Houston or San Diego that would teach those sanctuary cities a lesson.

INDIVIDUALS are illegal and INDIVIDUALS get deported and imprisoned for it. Lots of them. Every day. From everywhere.

[yermom]

Obama. Traitor to his party.

this.

although, medicinal pot in California is a nudge and a wink away from recreational pot, so it's not that surprising

[okie52]

Where do you get this horse-*** "information"? That's just wrong. Federal courts, especially in Texas, are jam-packed will illegal alien prosecutions. I see this with my own 2 eyes every workday. Stop believing BS propaganda just because you want agree with it.

You are truly full of ****. You just don't keep up do you? There have been articles
posted many times on this board where the Obama administration is dropping
deportations and prosecution of illegals unless they are criminals.

You need to go to the optometrist to get those "eyes" checked.

[sappstuf]

What's your question? Can you give me a legal defintion of sanctuary city? Are the feds supposed to impose martial law and go house to house in these ill-defined places looking for illegals? Should mayors and city councils be prosecuted? Perhaps if we move the border to north of Houston or San Diego that would teach those sanctuary cities a lesson.

INDIVIDUALS are illegal and INDIVIDUALS get deported and imprisoned for it. Lots of them. Every day. From everywhere.

I can give you a couple of examples..


The Governor of Maine instituted an Executive Order entitled "An Order Concerning Access to State Services By All Entitled Maine Residents," in 2004. The Order limits state employee ability to report the presence of illegal aliens, which some people claim has resulted in many illegal aliens migrating to Maine seeking public benefits and valid Maine drivers licenses (which can be used to drive in other states).



In 2008, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, publicized the city's sanctuary status in a press release for San Francisco's Sanctuary City Outreach Program. Since that time, the mayor has backtracked somewhat after news organizations began exposing how the city's sanctuary policy had protected illegal alien gang members that were committing serious crimes in San Francisco and elsewhere. In 2009, Newsome attempted to veto an ordinance passed by San Francisco's even more radical Board of Supervisors which prohibited illegal aliens charged with crimes from being detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In Katy, TX, publicity about re-offending illegal aliens also put pressure on that city's administration to rethink it's sanctuary policy--at least for illegal aliens that commit felonies.

[sappstuf]

You are truly full of ****. You just don't keep up do you? There have been articles
posted many times on this board where the Obama administration is dropping
deportations and prosecution of illegals unless they are criminals.

You need to go to the optometrist to get those "eyes" checked.
illegals except

Okie,

do you mean like this story from August?


Dems cheer Obama’s more lenient rules on deportations of illegal immigrants (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/177453-dems-cheer-obamas-new-immigration-policy)

[pphilfran]

What's your question? Can you give me a legal defintion of sanctuary city? Are the feds supposed to impose martial law and go house to house in these ill-defined places looking for illegals? Should mayors and city councils be prosecuted? Perhaps if we move the border to north of Houston or San Diego that would teach those sanctuary cities a lesson.

INDIVIDUALS are illegal and INDIVIDUALS get deported and imprisoned for it. Lots of them. Every day. From everywhere.

Do sanctuary cities make it easier or more difficult to identify illegal citizens?

[okie52]

Okie,

do you mean like this story from August?

That and :


U.S. shifts approach to deporting illegal immigrants

By Marcus Stern, ProPublica

The Obama administration is changing the federal immigration enforcement strategy in ways that reduce the threat of deportation for millions of illegal immigrants, even as states such as Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio and Texas are pushing to accelerate deportations.

The changes focus enforcement on immigrants who have committed serious crimes, an effort to unclog immigration courts and detention centers. A record backlog of deportation cases has forced immigrants to wait an average 459 days for their hearings, according to an Aug. 12 report by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which analyzes government data.



Among the recent changes:

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton ordered agency officials on Aug. 20 to begin dismissing deportation cases against people who haven't committed serious crimes and have credible immigration applications pending.


• A proposed directive from Morton posted on ICE's website for public comment last month would generally prohibit police from using misdemeanor traffic stops to send people to ICE. Traffic stops have led to increased deportations in recent years, according to Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank whose research supports tighter enforcement.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-10-immigration10_ST_N.htm

[okie52]

What's your question? Can you give me a legal defintion of sanctuary city? Are the feds supposed to impose martial law and go house to house in these ill-defined places looking for illegals? Should mayors and city councils be prosecuted? Perhaps if we move the border to north of Houston or San Diego that would teach those sanctuary cities a lesson.

INDIVIDUALS are illegal and INDIVIDUALS get deported and imprisoned for it. Lots of them. Every day. From everywhere.

Mayors and city councils should be prosecuted for openly (or covertly) defying federal law. Federal funds should be stripped from any sanctuary city.

[okie52]

Obama to reduce deportations, issue work permits to some undocumented



By Nicolas Mendoza | 08.19.11 | 6:37 am


Many undocumented immigrants without criminal records who are up for deportation will be allowed to indefinitely stay in the United States and apply for work permits, said U.S. Department of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday.

The Associated Press reports that federal immigration officials will evaluate approximately 300,000 immigrants up for deportation on a case-by-case basis to identify which do not have criminal records and should be allowed to stay.

http://newmexicoindependent.com/71188/obama-to-reduce-deportations-issue-work-permits-to-some-undocumented


Perhaps there is a way to post in braille for those that have "eye" problems.

[sappstuf]

http://newmexicoindependent.com/71188/obama-to-reduce-deportations-issue-work-permits-to-some-undocumented


Perhaps there is a way to post in braille for those that have "eye" problems.

Okie,

BESIDES those examples.... ;)

[okie52]

Obama Administration Pledges to Reduce Deportations
Thursday, August 18, 2011, 3:25 PM EDT



Pres. Obama


The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will individually review the 300,000 cases of illegal aliens currently holding deportation orders in an effort to appease his pro-amnesty critics and last year's record number of deportations.

The Administration deported 400,000 illegal aliens last year -- less than half had been convicted for other crimes. Pres. Obama is pledging to halt deportations of non-criminal illegal aliens. Illegal aliens that are considered low-priority deportations will no longer be the focus, including young people who were brought to the U.S. as children, military veterans and spouses of military personnel.

"They will be applying common sense guidelines to make these decisions, like a person's ties and contributions to the community, their family relationships and military service record," White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz wrote on the White House blog. "In the end, this means more immigration enforcement pressure where it counts the most, and less where it doesn't – that's the smartest way to follow the law while we stay focused on working with the Congress to fix it."

Just to help those that are visually impaired.

[NormanPride]

I really am starting to despise this president. Before it was just frustration and disappointment.

[okie52]

Okie,

BESIDES those examples.... ;)

Other than those I got nuttin.....

[OULenexaman]

The DREAM act.....watch this one get slammed through like Obamacare just before the elections....

[okie52]

The DREAM act.....watch this one get slammed through like Obamacare just before the elections....

Not that Obama won't try but that probably would never get through the House.

[sappstuf]

Not that Obama won't try but that probably would never get through the House.

Okie,

The DREAM act already passed the House. It was one of the last things that Nancy and the Dems did in their lame duck session after the elections when they knew they had lost. The Senate couldn't get to 60 votes though...

I think it is dead, but Harry has already changed the rules of the Senate once yesterday.. He could use the same tactic to changed the filibuster rule from 60 to a simple majority and then pass it.

[okie52]

Okie,

The DREAM act already passed the House. It was one of the last things that Nancy and the Dems did in their lame duck session after the elections when they knew they had lost. The Senate couldn't get to 60 votes though...

I think it is dead, but Harry has already changed the rules of the Senate once yesterday.. He could use the same tactic to changed the filibuster rule from 60 to a simple majority and then pass it.

You are right...I had forgotten that. But doesn't the new "House" have to pass it again? How long can it sit before it is wiped from the books?

[okie52]

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/dreamact-1218x-large.jpg

I always appreciate illegals demanding their rights.

[OULenexaman]

why is Ron Jeremy at that protest??

[OU_Sooners75]

http://i55.tinypic.com/35ji8tv.jpg

[badger]

legalization of pot is something that could probably get bi-partisan support if they taxed the hell out of it and put restrictions on where you could smoke it (not in public buildings like many current smoking bans, not it front of children, perhaps not even outside your home except at designation distribution areas).

why couldn't they talk about this legislation instead of Obamacare for the past four years? :(

[TUSooner]

Oh, THAT's what you anti-immigration folks are howling about. All I can tell you is that the DHS and courts are imprisoning and deporting as many people as they can, as fast as they can, and if you want the gub'ment to drop everything and go rooting around for all those evil Guatemalan hotel maids and Honduran carpenters who scare you so much, you're going to have to increase the size of the federal law enforcement apparatus, the DHS, and the federal judicary rather than putting the squeeze on. In short, immigration law is being enforced about as much as it practically can be, and focusing on the illegal aleins who have committed crimes other than illegal entry is smart under any administration.

[okie52]

Oh, THAT's what you anti-immigration folks are howling about. All I can tell you is that the DHS and courts are imprisoning and deporting as many people as they can, as fast as they can, and if you want the gub'ment to drop everything and go rooting around for all those evil Guatemalan hotel maids and Honduran carpenters who scare you so much, you're going to have to increase the size of the federal law enforcement apparatus, the DHS, and the federal judicary rather than putting the squeeze on. In short, immigration law is being enforced about as much as it practically can be, and focusing on the illegal aleins who have committed crimes other than illegal entry is smart under any administration.

Spoken like a true open borders parrot. Anti immigration and anti illegal immigration are not the same thing...counselor. You should know that. Does 12,000,000 plus illegals not even raise an eyebrow for you? Do you call them undocumented workers so as not to offend them?

If the illegals have no jobs or benefits many will leave but, and of course you probably don't know this, Obama even fought to have employers knowingly hiring illegals not be punished. Luckily he lost in every court case on that issue. But illegal immigration will never end until the border is secured. Economically it could be done with landmines.

[sappstuf]

Spoken like a true open borders parrot. Anti immigration and anti illegal immigration are not the same thing...counselor. You should know that. Does 12,000,000 plus illegals not even raise an eyebrow for you? Do you call them undocumented workers so as not to offend them?

If the illegals have no jobs or benefits many will leave but, and of course you probably don't know this, Obama even fought to have employers knowingly hiring illegals not be punished. Luckily he lost in every court case on that issue. But illegal immigration will never end until the border is secured. Economically it could be done with landmines.

Is it time to start the catapult conversation?

http://allthingsordinary.se/images/original/373__Squirrel_launcher.gif?1255028918

[okie52]

Is it time to start the catapult conversation?

http://allthingsordinary.se/images/original/373__Squirrel_launcher.gif?1255028918

LOL-I was saving that for the expeditious deportation system.

[TUSooner]

Spoken like a true open borders parrot. Anti immigration and anti illegal immigration are not the same thing...counselor. You should know that. Does 12,000,000 plus illegals not even raise an eyebrow for you? Do you call them undocumented workers so as not to offend them?

If the illegals have no jobs or benefits many will leave but, and of course you probably don't know this, Obama even fought to have employers knowingly hiring illegals not be punished. Luckily he lost in every court case on that issue. But illegal immigration will never end until the border is secured. Economically it could be done with landmines.

Oh I know the difference. But I'm sure you could self-righteously preach to me about the great significance of legal versus illegal, on paper, anyway. In the flesh, I doubt you really care or could even tell the difference. Still, your professed reverence for the sanctity of the law is almost touching.

I'll tell you this though, I'd much rather be whatever names you want to call me (however inaccurate) than to think as cynically and squalidly as you do. Yeah, let's mine the ****ing border! Maim and kill a few wetbacks so we can save a few bucks and not have to hear Spanish at the DMV and the grocery store. (That's what Jesus would do, right?) It would really suck to have a mind like that.

[okie52]

Oh I know the difference. But I'm sure you could self-righteously preach to me about the great significance of legal versus illegal, on paper, anyway. In the flesh, I doubt you really care or could even tell the difference. Still, your professed reverence for the sanctity of the law is almost touching.

I'll tell you this though, I'd much rather be whatever names you want to call me (however inaccurate) than to think as cynically and squalidly as you do. Yeah, let's mine the ****ing border! Maim and kill a few wetbacks so we can save a few bucks and not have to hear Spanish at the DMV and the grocery store. (That's what Jesus would do, right?) It would really suck to have a mind like that.

For a guy that preaches truth over political bias you are really having a hard time here. You just don't have a clue about illegal immigration other than what fits your political dogma. ...the very thing you find so irritating in others.

I'll bet you can rattle off all of the PC names for undocumented workers...come on, give us the list. It should be quite entertaining

Press 1 for .....

[KantoSooner]

I'm not sure where the point is, in terms of percentage of the population, but at some point, when a law is either opposed by or irrelevant to a certain quantum of the population, it ceases to be a law with any moral force and becomes simply an odious regulation.

Our nation's pot policies passed that point many, many years ago. Something tried by what? 40% of the population at one time or another? When do we either lock everyone up or call it a day and trash these stupid laws?

If this is truly Obama's best expenditure of Holder's time, then he's well and truly done.

[TUSooner]

For a guy that preaches truth over political bias you are really having a hard time here. You just don't have a clue about illegal immigration other than what fits your political dogma. ...the very thing you find so irritating in others.

I'll bet you can rattle off all of the PC names for undocumented workers...come on, give us the list. It should be quite entertaining

Press 1 for .....

I read that as "nana nana boo boo."
What's my political dogma, aside form not mining the border, that is. And what truth about illegal aliens am I missing? That they are aliens and that they are here without authorization? Believe me, I'm generally glad that the ones I deal with are in prison or deported. I just don't quite share your degree of disgust and alarm over a lot of other illegals who are basically harmless and whose only crime is being here. But your last post shows you only want to bait me, call names, and build straw men (shoddy ones at that). So knock yourself out! Maybe I'll check back later to see what nifty zingers you've come up with. (You'll have to do much better than asking for euphemisms for illegal aliens, though.)

[okie52]

I read that as "nana nana boo boo."
What's my political dogma, aside form not mining the border, that is. And what truth about illegal aliens am I missing? That they are aliens and that they are here without authorization? Believe me, I'm generally glad that the ones I deal with are in prison or deported. I just don't quite share your degree of disgust and alarm over a lot of other illegals who are basically harmless and whose only crime is being here. But your last post shows you only want to bait me, call names, and build straw men (shoddy ones at that). So knock yourself out! Maybe I'll check back later to see what nifty zingers you've come up with. (You'll have to do much better than asking for euphemisms for illegal aliens, though.)

And I was so looking forward to your PC list. Anybody that declares someone as anti immigration for being against illegal immigration has already shown their colors. I'm sure you support the dream act and instate tuition for illegals.

I doubt you share my views as you probably are not a negative population growth supporter. The illegals are not only uneducated but also breeders...the highest breeders by far in the country. And those that promote their presence in this country are doing so out of profit and/or political motives, not that their presence is advancing this country.

OUr legal immigration policy was for decades seeking to recruit educated, skilled labor and culturally diverse groups. Our open border policies are hardly doing that.

[SicEmBaylor]

And I was so looking forward to your PC list. Anybody that declares someone as anti immigration for being against illegal immigration has already shown their colors. I'm sure you support the dream act and instate tuition for illegals.

Let me take this opportunity to say that anyone who labels me anti-immigration because I'm anti-illegal immigration would be....100% correct. Let's be honest with ourselves, there are certainly a large number of people who say they are anti-illegal immigration who are, in reality, anti-immigration. They just won't admit it. I will, but they will not. Every immigrant weakens our western European heritage and increases the risk of a "balkanization" effect, especially in the southwest. But don't get me wrong -- I oppose ALL immigration regardless of country or origin, but clearly Mexican immigrants are the largest problem. I'm not too worried about all of those British, French, German, Danish, etc. immigrants flooding our shores.

But there is a LOT of hypocrisy among those who fight illegal immigration.


I doubt you share my views as you probably are not a negative population growth supporter.
This is another major major problem that we're going to have to confront. 1st world/European population numbers are dwindling while 3rd world population numbers are exploding at an ever increasing rate. There's no reasonable solution to the problem that I can see, but obviously as a society becomes better educated and more affluent the number of children people have starts to decease.

The illegals are not only uneducated but also breeders...the highest breeders by far in the country. And those that promote their presence in this country are doing so out of profit and/or political motives, not that their presence is advancing this country.
Correct, but you must realize that there is no difference between a legal and illegal immigrant in this regard other than their legal label.


OUr legal immigration policy was for decades seeking to recruit educated, skilled labor and culturally diverse groups. Our open border policies are hardly doing that.
Which must stop.

[okie52]

I am fully supportive of legal immigration as a means to recruit people that will advance this country as was often the case in the 30's and 40's. The einstein's and even the Von brauns fit that category. The skilled labor we received from europe also fits. Now if our
immigration were to show harm to our population by growing then I would be for it's
reduction or elimination.

You do know from the 1920's until the 1965 the US rerstricted European immigration.
During That same time there was no restriction on Latinos.

And the legal immigrants are required to pass a civics test and be able to speak English.
Hopefully ending press 1...

[SicEmBaylor]

I am fully supportive of legal immigration as a means to recruit people that will advance this country as was often the case in the 30's and 40's.
The US was in the midst of a depression during the 30's and very early 40's. I'm not sure how much "recruiting" we did when there were more than enough skilled Americans without jobs in line at the soup kitchens.



The einstein's and even the Von brauns fit that category.
Einstein is hardly representative of the typical immigrant. As for Von Bruan, I'm not sure how much choice we gave him. I wouldn't call that "immigrating" so much as I'd call it "work for us or we're throwing you in Spandau or letting the Russians have you."


The skilled labor we received from europe also fits. Now if our
immigration were to show harm to our population by growing then I would be for it's
reduction or elimination.
We have a population of 350 million with almost 10% unemployment. Don't you think we've probably reached the point that immigration is no longer necessary to keep the country running?


You do know from the 1920's until the 1965 the US rerstricted European immigration
During That same time there was no restriction on Latinos.
I'm not sure of your point. I don't care where they're from. Latino or Irish, it matters not.


And the legal immigrants are required to pass a civics test and be able to speak English.
Hopefully ending press 1...
"Press 1" isn't going to be solved by literacy and civics tests. It's a symptom of illegal immigration not legal immigration. Ending both is what will end "Press 1."

[TUSooner]

And I was so looking forward to your PC list. Anybody that declares someone as anti immigration for being against illegal immigration has already shown their colors. I'm sure you support the dream act and instate tuition for illegals.

I doubt you share my views as you probably are not a negative population growth supporter. The illegals are not only uneducated but also breeders...the highest breeders by far in the country. And those that promote their presence in this country are doing so out of profit and/or political motives, not that their presence is advancing this country.

OUr legal immigration policy was for decades seeking to recruit educated, skilled labor and culturally diverse groups. Our open border policies are hardly doing that.

I only quoted that so I could make plain that it is too inane and childlish to merit a thoughtful response.

In truth, I only said "anti-immigrant" in my original post because I was just too lazy to type "anit-illegal-immigrant" My previous posts were all about whether we are enforcing immigration laws, not about immigration itself, illegal or not. I actually wanted to AVOID the the issue of dissembling and using "illegal" as a proxy for "immigrant." But since you seized on my semantic laziness to get yourself all stoked up and babbling, I suggest you read SicEm's post. At least his arguments are honest -- and challenging. I don't for one second believe that your devotion to the rule of law in the abstract is behind your views about illegal immigration. It's about control, and why do we want control unless its to keep some immigrants out? The first question is "why" do we want to keep "who" out, and the second is "how" to do it in light of the answer to the first. But we've plowed this ground many time around here. I don't have a magic answer; I just don't like yours, or your lame legalism.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not to keep hammering away at this, but let me say something else:

The fact that most anti-illegal immigration people focus on trying to get rid of the immigrants themselves is totally indicative of the fact that their real problem is with latino immigrants and not with people who are simply breaking the law.

The evidence of this is clear as can be. How many of them are really gun-ho about prosecuting and throwing the book at farmers and businesses that employ these people? Very few. Illegal immigrants come here because they want opportunity. Businesses and farms provide that opportunity. If you make the penalties for hiring an illegal so harsh that nobody would risk the consequences THEN you will start to see a reduction in the number of illegal immigrants. People who suggest we can "round up" the nation's illegals and "throw them" back are either clinically insane or certifiably stupid. If there are no opportunities for illegals in the United States then the problem will take care of itself -- they'll go back to Mexico. That is the only way we're going to have major reductions in the number of illegals.

Anyway, that little bit of wisdom is free but the next one is gonna cost ya.

[pphilfran]

Okie wants to throw the book at employers that hire illegals...

I want to throw the book at employers that hire illegals...

Obama not so much...

I don't care how we handle the ones currently in the states...there are two nearly impossible choices...

Round em all up and ship em all back...easier said than done...finding them and housing and shipping them back won't be easy...

Give them a path to citizenship...there will be some that won't sign up for various reasons and we will still have to round up that 5% or so...the rest will need to be 'logged' into the system and tracked for some extended period up time to insure they are on schedule...

[SicEmBaylor]

Okie wants to throw the book at employers that hire illegals...

Give them a path to citizenship...there will be some that won't sign up for various reasons and we will still have to round up that 5% or so...the rest will need to be 'logged' into the system and tracked for some extended period up time to insure they are on schedule...

Yep, and if I'm not mistaken the number of illegal immigrants has dropped. Tulsa passed some measures of its own that resulted in a marked reduction. See, there are more than just the two choices you outlined. Like I said in my previous post, you go after the employers in a drastic (even draconian) manner and the illegals will take care of themselves. They're not going to stay here if they have no opportunity, no job, and no government assistance.

[King Barry's Back]

My goodness! That article is by Lisa Leff! I used to work with her, but I had no idea she was working for AP - assuming its the same Laura Leff.

She did make one mistake. She wrote that marijuana is "legal in California."

What she should have said is "Marijuana for medical use is legal under California state law, but federal law makes the possession, sale and use of marijuana illegal everywhere in the United States."

[King Barry's Back]

Ridiculous.

The state of California should be free to do whatever the f'k it wants within its own borders without having the jack booted Federal thugs marching into the state like the Wehrmacht conquering Paris.

Are you serious? A state should so "whatever the f'k it wants"? What if it wants to barricade its borders? What if it wants to legalize polygamy? Does the federal gov't have to provide medical insurance to federal workers'/military members' sister wives?

I could think of more if it wasn't 4:30am over here.

Federal is superior to state law. The Constitution is superior to federal law.

That's just the way it works.

[King Barry's Back]

What's your question? Can you give me a legal defintion of sanctuary city? Are the feds supposed to impose martial law and go house to house in these ill-defined places looking for illegals? Should mayors and city councils be prosecuted? Perhaps if we move the border to north of Houston or San Diego that would teach those sanctuary cities a lesson.

My understanding of sanctuary cities is this: The mayors/city councils in question are opposed to federal immigration, and thus order their own city-controlled resources to not cooperate with ICE. For ex, when police pick up a public-drunk, and find out that he is an illegal, they routinely coordinate to turn him over to ICE.

In sanctuary cities, they would just take care of the public drunk charge and turn him back out on the street, with no ICE call.

This looks like a pretty good case of federalism. The same as the Californa medical marijuana principle. If you get a pot license, the state authorities won't both you. But the feds still will.

[SicEmBaylor]

Are you serious? A state should so "whatever the f'k it wants"? What if it wants to barricade its borders?
Well, it can't do that since it's explicitly unconstitutional.

What if it wants to legalize polygamy?
Then let them. Why the f'k would that be a federal issue? What business is it of ours if the state of California wants to legalize polygomy. That's up to the California legislature and the people of the state of California.


Does the federal gov't have to provide medical insurance to federal workers'/military members' sister wives?
That'd be up to the Federal government. California can legalize it if they wish, but the Federal government should not have to recognize that marriage. Now, the state would most certainly have to provide benefits to state employees.


I could think of more if it wasn't 4:30am over here.
No need. I get the point. My answer would always be the same -- the states should be free to determine their own domestic policy free of Federal interference unless it's explicitly unconstitutional (like the state of Texas making deals with Mexico or Mexican businessmen).


Federal is superior to state law.
It is now unfortunately. It wasn't designed that way when it comes to the domestic policy of the states, but such is the world we live in...Nonetheless, the Federal government has no damned business interfering with the domestic policy of the individual states. It is so egregious to everything I believe that it makes revolution absolutely justifiable in my estimation.


The Constitution is superior to federal law.
Yes. Yes it is. Where in the enumerated powers of Congress does it allow them to interfere with a state's internal drug policy? Now, what the Federal government can do is regulate the interstate trafficking of medical marijuana. They are perfectly within their right to ensure that none of the state's medical pot cross state lines.


That's just the way it works.
Correct. It's the way it works. It's not the way it should or was supposed to work.

[SicEmBaylor]

The idea that the Federal government can and should interfere with the domestic policy of the states is a pretty astounding idea. If this is true, what is the purpose of limiting Federal power at all? What real limits would exist on their power and if such lines exist then how do you define them? The Constitution is pretty clear about what the Federal government can do and reserves all other power to the states and people respectively.

And people say, "Oh the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Fed to do XYZ." I have news for you, the intention of that clause was to allow the Federal government to pass legislation that was not explicitly allowed for in the Constitution yet remained consistent with the enumerated powers. Federal acts were supposed to ALWAYS be consistent with those enumerated powers.

But that's getting somewhat off subject here. What the state of California should do is tell the Federal government to go **** itself and then threaten to arrest any Federal official who attempts to enforce an unconstitutional Federal law within its borders.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Ending the Global War on Drugs

The Cato Institute

Tuesday, November 15, 2011
9:00 a.m. — 6:15 p.m.


NAHB Auditorium
1201 15th Street, N.W., Washington D.C.
(Corner of 15th St. and M St., N.W.)


Although the global prohibition of drugs has manifestly failed to stem the use of narcotics, it has generated enormous costs and perverse outcomes. In the United States, the war on drugs is generating alarming violations of civil liberties, weakening the rule of law, and compromising law enforcement efforts. The U.S.-led drug war is also undermining legitimate foreign policy goals around the world, including the spread of liberal democracy and an effective war on terror. This conference will bring together prominent scholars and international leaders to analyze current policy and propose practical alternatives such as legalization.

Speakers will discuss:

•The impact of the drug war in Mexico, on the U.S. border, and in Central America
•How prohibition helps fund terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond
•How Washington's anti-narcotics campaign violates the Constitution
•The effects of criminalization on minorities in the United States
•Lessons from South America
•The evolution of drug policy in the United States and what decriminalization or legalization would look like in practice



Business attire is requested.

[okie52]

The US was in the midst of a depression during the 30's and very early 40's. I'm not sure how much "recruiting" we did when there were more than enough skilled Americans without jobs in line at the soup kitchens.

It was the 20's when the law was enacted when the economy was surging. They probably just left it alone in the 30's and 40's. The world war II period and after would have had a significant boom.

Einstein is hardly representative of the typical immigrant. As for Von Bruan, I'm not sure how much choice we gave him. I wouldn't call that "immigrating" so much as I'd call it "work for us or we're throwing you in Spandau or letting the Russians have you."

Didn't say they were typical just that they advanced America which is exactly the type of immigrants we should seek.

We have a population of 350 million with almost 10% unemployment. Don't you think we've probably reached the point that immigration is no longer necessary to keep the country running?

I think we are closer to about 315,000,000. Well maybe if you threw in 30,000,000 illegals we might be at 350,000,000. The point is not to see our population grow which I am absolutely against but rather to recruit people that will aid our economy and/or society. I want to see our population go back to 150,000,000 and the world to go from 6.5 billion to 1 billion. Historically
I think we have been averaging about 500,000 per year (legally). Should our population start to see a 1 child per household as opposed to 2.2 to 2.3 we could get there in a few generations even with 500,000 immigrants a year. But that number is not set in stone and could certainly be adjusted to meet our best interests.

I am thinking more about engineers, scientists, etc... along with specialized skilled labor to fit immigration needs. If there is no need then I have no problem in no immigration.

I'm not sure of your point. I don't care where they're from. Latino or Irish, it matters not.

The point was the US adjusted its immigration policies to fit the times. In the early 1900's the problem was with oversaturation by Europeans. Today it is Latinos.


"Press 1" isn't going to be solved by literacy and civics tests. It's a symptom of illegal immigration not legal immigration. Ending both is what will end "Press 1."

Not sure what your point is here. I agree illegal immigration is almost the sole purpose for press 1. Legal immigration has nothing to do with it.

[okie52]

I only quoted that so I could make plain that it is too inane and childlish to merit a thoughtful response.

In truth, I only said "anti-immigrant" in my original post because I was just too lazy to type "anit-illegal-immigrant" My previous posts were all about whether we are enforcing immigration laws, not about immigration itself, illegal or not. I actually wanted to AVOID the the issue of dissembling and using "illegal" as a proxy for "immigrant." But since you seized on my semantic laziness to get yourself all stoked up and babbling, I suggest you read SicEm's post. At least his arguments are honest -- and challenging. I don't for one second believe that your devotion to the rule of law in the abstract is behind your views about illegal immigration. It's about control, and why do we want control unless its to keep some immigrants out? The first question is "why" do we want to keep "who" out, and the second is "how" to do it in light of the answer to the first. But we've plowed this ground many time around here. I don't have a magic answer; I just don't like yours, or your lame legalism.

I agree with you. Your posts have been ill informed and intellectually and semantically lazy. And, as demonstrated by your initial post on the subject.

Of course its about control. It took you this long to figure that out? Its about controlling the border and controlling our population. You don't have to read between the lines to get that info as I will gladly state it openly to you.

And, an informed source such as yourself doesn't like my position? Devastating.

[TUSooner]

I agree with you. Your posts have been ill informed and intellectually and semantically lazy. And, as demonstrated by your initial post on the subject.

Of course its about control. It took you this long to figure that out? Its about controlling the border and controlling our population. You don't have to read between the lines to get that info as I will gladly state it openly to you.

And, an informed source such as yourself doesn't like my position? Devastating.

I knew you'd hate that.

Congratulations! You started an argument, argued yourself in circles, and declared yourself the winner. I'm glad I could be a part of it.

[okie52]

I knew you'd hate that.

Congratulations! You started an argument, argued yourself in circles, and declared yourself the winner. I'm glad I could be a part of it.


Originally Posted by TUSooner

Where do you get this horse-*** "information"? That's just wrong. Federal courts, especially in Texas, are jam-packed will illegal alien prosecutions. I see this with my own 2 eyes every workday. Stop believing BS propaganda just because you want agree with it.

Your grasp of reality is only exceeded by your incredible memory.

[okie52]

more lies.

They broke the record on the number of deportations for the third year in a row....over 400,000 deportation per year.

How many of you dope heads did he convict?

Any of them your students?

Need to read up sanctuary sooner. Your students are safe now.

[TUSooner]

Your grasp of reality is only exceeded by your incredible memory.

Is that really how it looks to you? I stated that the courts are loaded down with illegal immigrant cases and are enforcing immigration law by jailing and deporting illegals as fast as practical. That is simply true. If it's not enough for you, so be it. But, you were all stoked up so you started in with a whole new argument about immigration in general so you could unloose your pre-packaged rant -- wasting no time in advocating land mines as a cost-effective way of keeping people out. You didn't make a significant distinction between illegal and legal until I talked about "control" and thus articulated your best argument for you. Your participation it this exchange was mainly limited to spouting dogma and attributing extreme views to me. ("C'mon, how may PC names for illegal aliens can you give us?" Pfffft.) It was evident from the git-go that you already have the whole illegal immigration deal compressed into a nice little problem that can be solved by blowing people's legs off. Hey, you got to say it. And I'm sure there are some folks here who agree with you. So yippee for you.

[okie52]

Is that really how it looks to you? I stated that the courts are loaded down with illegal immigrant cases and are enforcing immigration law by jailing and deporting illegals as fast as practical. That is simply true. If it's not enough for you, so be it. But, you were all stoked up so you started in with a whole new argument about immigration in general so you could unloose your pre-packaged rant -- wasting no time in advocating land mines as a cost-effective way of keeping people out. You didn't make a significant distinction between illegal and legal until I talked about "control" and thus articulated your best argument for you. Your participation it this exchange was mainly limited to spouting dogma and attributing extreme views to me. ("C'mon, how may PC names for illegal aliens can you give us?" Pfffft.) It was evident from the git-go that you already have the whole illegal immigration deal compressed into a nice little problem that can be solved by blowing people's legs off. Hey, you got to say it. And I'm sure there are some folks here who agree with you. So yippee for you.

I have started a couple of new threads for your much needed educational benefit. Sanctuary Sooner AKA SanJoaqin Sooner even thanked me for it. I suggest we move this discussion there so others can rant about Obama attacking potheads in a very questionable use of government funds on this thread.