The Obamagration Timeline and Help from Foreign Leaders

Believe this: Obama, Holder, et al, got something out of this, and so did the government officials that helped in this illegal transfer. The use of these "kids" is disturbing. Watch carefully where they put these "children" throughout the country and what "programs" they are putting them in.

Don't get caught up in the perimeter arguments. Watch what the Left Hand is doing while the right hand is stirring the pot of contention.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Believe this: Obama, Holder, et al, got something out of this, and so did the government officials that helped in this illegal transfer. The use of these "kids" is disturbing. Watch carefully where they put these "children" throughout the country and what "programs" they are putting them in.

Don't get caught up in the perimeter arguments. Watch what the Left Hand is doing while the right hand is stirring the pot of contention.

More like who else is coming across the border while we deal with these kids. I think it has everything to do with overwhelming the southern border and bankrupting the system as well. One last little scheme to wring the last few dollars and resources out of our economy for it crashes and the real party begins.

a reply to: hogstooth

Well, also back in 1883, we didn't quite have so many laws on the books in regards to immigration. In fact, there was nothing but a whole lot of negative sentiment when about 500,000 Irish landed on our shores back in the 1840's and 1850's due to the Irish Famine. Tens of thousands of Irish were landing in some of our largest cities in the US a year during that and it actually significantly changed the demographics of those cities. In fact, when the cholera epidemic of the 19th century reached our shores, those Irish immigrants were largely the targets of the blame for the disease's arrival. And yet, they still put that poem at the feet of the Statue of Liberty in 1883.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

So at what point do we have too many people? At what point can our society not sustain the burden anymore? We got well over 300 million people right now. The system was a lot more resilient back then. There were things needing built and people willing to pay the money to build it. We don't build anything anymore. The whole country is falling apart. The money that should be getting spent to fix things is going to people who have no right to be here. We don't even have the money we are spending to help these people. We are borrowing it. Who is gonna help us when the system collapses and we managed to piss off the rest of the world? Honduras can't help us. El Salvador can't help us. Mexico can't help us. Why should we put ourselves further in debt when we need to be cutting as many expendatures as possible?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

The times are different now and much more dangerous.

As we have learned from this very discussion board, under NDAA, deceptive domestic propaganda is now allowed in the U.S. This means we can't believe a damn thing anymore coming out of this White House and his complicit media hierophants. We don't have a clue as to what is really going on, because only certain people have been allowed access to these holding facilities and certain others denied.

Does anybody remember the days when reporters could actually talk and interview the subjects involved?! The people running this administration, including the POTUS AND FLOTUS, are a bunch of lawyers, and sneaky ones at that! According to them, these are "children" and certain rights and rules pertain to their privacy and protection. Hmmm....think about that for a minute. I wish just one reporter would ask to speak to one of the illegally transferred individuals who is over 18!

Let me correct that: "DEMAND" to speak to one of the illegally transferred individuals who is over 18!

a reply to: queenofswords

Are they more dangerous now? I seem to recall that that same aforementioned immigration back in the 19th century was heavily involved in some significantly volatile events which occurred in relation to the draft. In fact, so volatile were these events that martial law in New York City was actually declared.

New York City draft riots

Now I don't see martial law being declared on US soil at the moment so I figure that we must be in less dangerous times than back then before "The New Colossus" was etched at the feet of our lady.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Then your definition of "dangerous" is different from mine.

Can you verify this though non conservative links?

I mean anything that isn't in the right wing echo chamber?

Cause otherwise it's just conjecture, rumor, and probably a lie.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Are they more dangerous now?

How 'bout MS-13 ?

I think that outfit is working directly with White House insider contacts like Valerie Jarrett.

Gotta wonder how many are crossing into the U.S. "undetected" and "protected" at the same time.

MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) Gang ... Recruiting

a reply to: rustyclutch

These same sentiments were often the most frequently expressed during all of the largest immigrations into our country. In 1847, I believe it was Boston that received an influx of 37,000 Irish immigrants to their city in one single year. Imagine the pressure of that on everything from rents to the job market. Yet somehow, we managed to overcome it.

I have faith that we'll overcome this again. We are capable of adjusting. We just need to actually do it.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: WhiteAlice
As we have learned from this very discussion board, under NDAA, deceptive domestic propaganda is now allowed in the U.S.

That's absolutely false.

All of these threads are just filled to the brim with xenophobia. Sure, immigration has increased, so have deportations. Obama's the Deporter in Chief. Deporting more immigrants than any other president.

Keep talking about how much Obama wants these people here for 'votes'. If that were true he'd stop deporting them or at least...deport a lot less of them. Votes hardly matter in this country when a nominee can win five states and take the presidency, regardless of popular votes. Also doesn't matter that a million more people voted for democrats in the last house election and yet...the GOP have a substantial majority. That's very, very representative of the population, isn't it?

Our immigration system is so broken. A wall won't help, a million troops on the border won't help. It's so much more than that. Keep the threads coming though. I think we're a week behind on our regular Hillary threads.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: rustyclutch

I have faith that we'll overcome this again. We are capable of adjusting. We just need to actually do it.

We've about *adjusted* ourselves out of anything resembling what Our Constitution stood for.

If you call that adjusting...leave me out.

Des

a reply to: xuenchen

And how about the Molly Maguires? Thinking or suspecting that something is working with the White House isn't proving it and history shows that, when greeted with resentment and adversity, bad feelings can propagate. Just as a fyi, one of my ancestors was a Molly Maguire. Presumption of guilt of those entering into our country is one of the things that created the Smith Act, the Japanese internment and more goodies.

Also, I have a question for you--xuenchen seems like it's Chinese. If that is the case, what's your feeling on the Chinese Exclusion Act?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

You keep referencing Irish immigrants as if they snuck into the country surreptitiously. We've had waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The big difference is these groups were processed through immigration and followed the laws at that time. We still have groups of people that would like the opportunity to live here and are following the laws as they stand now. This illegal border hopping is not something we should just adjust to and accept. There are proper immigration channels in place for a reason.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Then your definition of "dangerous" is different from mine.

I find murder and mayhem within the streets and martial law pretty dangerous personally.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Not understanding your historical comparisons.

We are trying to figure out if Obama is even coherent with today's crisis.

Can you draw anything that compares to the well organized and widespread and powerful drug cartels?

Were there any laws in the mid 1800's that are the same or similar to current laws (especially the ones that are selectively not being enforced) ?

originally posted by: hogstooth
a reply to: WhiteAlice

You keep referencing Irish immigrants as if they snuck into the country surreptitiously. We've had waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The big difference is these groups were processed through immigration and followed the laws at that time. We still have groups of people that would like the opportunity to live here and are following the laws as they stand now. This illegal border hopping is not something we should just adjust to and accept. There are proper immigration channels in place for a reason.

Well, you nailed it perfectly on the head. The reason why we have so many people sneaking surreptitiously into the country these days is because we have created laws that curtailed immigration into our country. That's how it works. We had a flood of Chinese immigrants into the country and the response was the Chinese Exclusion Act. Cause and effect. But before that act was passed, they didn't need to come in surreptitiously because there was no law excluding their entry.

Now in the case of these children immigrating into the country down south, their parents would've most likely been blocked from entry due to the immigration laws as they currently stand and yet, still felt that even illegal entry into the country, even unaccompanied, offered their children more of a chance than staying with their family.

That's why there is a growing bipartisan movement within the government to reform those laws.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Not understanding your historical comparisons.

We are trying to figure out if Obama is even coherent with today's crisis.

Can you draw anything that compares to the well organized and widespread and powerful drug cartels?

Were there any laws in the mid 1800's that are the same or similar to current laws (especially the ones that are selectively not being enforced) ?

Considering that Obama, as the president of this country, is privy to substantially more information than you and I both combined, I think he's probably more coherent about the situation than you or I could be. The best we can do is look at news sites and try to figure things out while he's got a whole slew of advisers, a variety of experts, and agencies at his disposal to keep him posted on what's up. Now that isn't saying that one should necessarily trust him or his judgment but luckily, we live in the US of A where most substantial actions or legislative changes require congressional approval. Being the executive office whose primary responsibility is dictating the execution of those laws that Congress has passed over the years, he does have the right and ability, as given by the Constitution, to execute those laws, as they are dictated, on a need-be basis.

Again though, that's not to say that one should necessarily trust his judgment or anything like that. If anything, I'm a big fan of questioning authority. I'm just not a huge fan of xenophobia without historical reflection.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

You cant answer any question I asked you. At what point do we have too many unemployed immigrants roaming our streets? At what point in history were we 18 trillion dollars in debt and paying 1000 bucks a month for foreign children to have a bed to sleep in? None of you that think we should let them in have a leg to stand on. Using your same logic, if one of these children breaks into your house seeking asylum you should have to house and feed him. It's the right thing to do right? Or is it only the right thing to do when ALL of us have to pay for it not just you?

a reply to: xuenchen

This is a neat link: History of immigration to the United States.

The first law that restricted immigration was the Page Act of 1875.

It wasn't until the 1940's that immigration from the southern border became a problem. Interestingly, it was a problem for Mexico, not the US.

This is a problem that will never be solved with a single president or a single act of congress. There is no easy answer to the immigration question.