Posted on 11/26/2014 9:32:04 AM PST by Zakeet
The only Americans who can legitimately object to immigration are native Indian-Americans, President Barack Obama told his Chicago audience Nov. 24, as he made an impassioned ideological plea for endless immigration, cultural diversity and a big government to manage the resulting multicultural society.
“There have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans,” Obama said, rhetorically dismissing the right of 300 million actual Americans to decide who can live in their homeland.
Americans should not favor other Americans over foreigners, Obama demanded.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I thought I had indicated strongly not to post or reply to me anymore. And I told you I'm on F.R. solely as an anti-Birther, not a general Obama apologist. But I'll go kindly on this point for the moment as I realize you're a bit slow on reading comprehension.
Your question is a poor one (no surprise) as actions which pertain to illegal/immigrants don't really pertain to citizens and vice versa. So making the comparison you want doesn't make sense (again, no surprise). But even within Obama's recent executive order, illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably. So your question is answered.
“Obama is not dangerous for this country” said McCain.
‘I thought I had indicated strongly not to post or reply to me anymore.’
Link?
‘I realize you’re a bit slow on reading comprehension.’
‘Your question is a poor one (no surprise) as actions which pertain to illegal/immigrants don’t really pertain to citizens and vice versa. So making the comparison you want doesn’t make sense (again, no surprise).’
Why so many childish putdowns? They make you seem...well, childish.
‘But even within Obama’s recent executive order’
There is/was no executive order. That was yet another Obama lie.
And to think...This is who Boner kowtows to.
‘But even within Obama’s recent [nonexistent] executive order, illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably.’
Why do you believe anything Obama claims? It’s all lies. Illegals by definition have criminal records. Obama has never deported them. He won’t start now because—hint—he lies.
“ICE released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records last year’
‘But even within Obama’s recent executive order [sic], illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably.’
Your entire premise supports the fact that Obama is writing law via memoranda. I.e.: you portray a law-writing executive memorandum as a good thing, because according to you it treats US citizens better than it treats illegals. [I.e.: you bought/fell for the Obama lie.]
Why are you not condemning Obama for this unconstitutional act? He’s not supposed to be writing or changing laws via memoranda. That is not how our government is designed. Why, as opposed to using this as a positive example, are you not citing it as an example of Obama’s lawless arrogance and Republic/country-destroying usurpation?
Btw, the issue [it wasn’t a question, as you erroneously stated] is perfectly legitimate. Obama has a consistent history of favoring both foreigners and illegals over American citizens. This isn’t a ‘question;’ it is a fact. Your silly example doesn’t refute it at all. If an American commits a crime and is convicted, he/she is typically sent to prison. That’s what a country’s prisons are for.
Saying Obama doesn’t boot American convicts out of the country is stupid. They are citizens, and the penalty for criminal wrongdoing by an American citizen is not deportation. Deporting an illegal alien [which, btw, Obama doesn’t do as a rule] is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the illegal broke laws to be here (in contrast to actual citizens). You really had to stretch to make this a point that ‘favors’ legal citizens. As in, stretch into the realm of psychosis.
‘But even within Obama’s recent executive order, illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably. ‘’
Folks, this is the mind of a moonbat liberal at work, writ large for all to see. I.e.: because Obama does not (illegally) strip an ***American citizen*** of his/her citizenship upon conviction of a crime, and then subject him/her to deportation, it means Obama treats US citizens more favorably than he treats illegal aliens.
Contemplate the craziness here. Not to be repetitive, but the argument is that if Obama didn’t favor legal citizens over illegals, he would use his famous ‘pen’ to write an EO stripping American citizens convicted of a crime of their citizenship—after which he would order them deported.
Moonbattery. Its first casualty is the mind.
How about:
You are just too daft to realize when a point is simply irrelevant to the topic and move on. Obama'a eligibility doesn't hinge on anything Scott did or didn't write.
When you fail to address the other person's main argument, and do so about 25 times, you lose the argument.
I've stuck the fork in and you were done after the 5th time. Everything you've posted since is smokescreen, bluff, distortion, and evasion. So kindly take your grade-school level debating skills and pester someone else next time.
I can see why you wouldn’t want to debate. What I can’t see is why you have a problem with merely answering a question.
For example, how about this one. You say Obama shows he favors American Citizens over illegal aliens by claiming he will deport the latter if they break the law. [A bold faced lie, but whatever.] Since he doesn’t claim he will also deport law-breaking Americans, he favors citizens over illegals.
So here is the question. If Obama decided, according to your analysis, that he wanted to treat American citizens and illegal aliens equally, where would he deport the American citizens to?
Not to their home country, obviously.
So where?
If there is no answer, then your example is nonsensical flapdoodle.
What totally destroys his argument is his failure to realize that his very office--the very basis for his even addressing the question from a legalistic standpoint--is entirely the creation of the American people who emerged from the Revolution to take their place among the ethnicities of the world. The legal claim to this land was established by that generation of Americans; those former British Colonists, who entrusted their posterity under the Constitution to the Government that they created in & by that Constitution.
If Obama is not able to understand so basic a concept; he is not competent to hold the present office--for there is nothing more basic to his duties.
William Flax
William Flax
That ‘example’ you gave of a time when Obama favored American citizens over illegal aliens is the single stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this site. It is typical of your ‘arguments.’ You make clueless, nonresponsive points and then claim you have won the debate. You are one of the two or three least skillful debaters I have ever encountered.
& btw, there is no place for Obama to deport American citizens to—and not even he could write an executive order making such deportations ‘legal.’ That example was simply idiotic. If that, and your prior efforts, were the best I could do, I’d want to opt out of the exchange as well.
His people are international Socialists. No group of Americans - even blacks - especially interests him, except to the extent they can be used to further the interests of a global welfare state.
Then again, if you think like a Klansman (i.e., the heritage of the Democrat Party) then one drop of negro blood ... well ... you know the rest ...
Oh, this coming from the lady to whom was put this salient point several dozen times and who couldn't even manage an attempt to reply. You ducked it completely each and every time:
The FACT remains that Hawaii verifying Obama's Hawaiian birth moots your entire line of inquiry as to who did or who didn't see Stanley Ann pregnant. And it moots your inquiry into what home or homes Stanley Ann resided before or after the delivery. Because the FACT remains (despite your utter silence on this point) that in this country we prove the facts of birth by getting the relevant state to certify those fact, NOT by chasing down pregnancy witnesses or grabbing photos of "birth homes."
But in your world, apparently, ducking and evading is being a "skillful debater."
You manage to create the perfect storm of being both daft and intellectually dishonest at the same time. Go away.
0bama is a third-world foreigner. Even if, somehow, he actually is a 'natural born citizen', he is still a third-worlder at heart. He thinks, acts, feels, as someone who is not of America. He sees America at best as nothing special, at worst as an oppressor. He clearly wishes to drag America down to the third-world primitivity of his beloved Kenya.
‘and who couldn’t even manage an attempt to reply. You ducked it completely each and every time:’
I ignored the point because it is a piddle poor one. To a conservative, the government is then problem, not the solution. This is true of all government, but more true of government (1) calcified by many, many decades of overt lying and corruption, and (2) characterized for many, many decades by liberalism and one-party Dem rule.
I lived in MA for 2-+ decades. It is an overwhelmingly liberal state that has been dominated by Dem rule time out of time. It is corrupt to the core. Anybody who believes any official pronouncement of the state of MA is either hopelessly naïve, hopelessly stupid, or part of the far left liberal problem.
HI is no different. You, a flaming liberal, keep on lecturing me, a conservative, that once a corrupt, long-time Dem/liberal dominated state has spoken, the discussion is over. Being a conservative on a conservative site, I get sick unto death of dealing with far left flaming Obot moonbats. So I ignored the most ideologically leftist AND stupid point you’ve made, and you, with your ego engaged and your brain in neutral, took it to mean you are the greatest debater ever to live.
No, you are just a liberal leftist moonbat sheep. For you, government is exalted. The last word. A bastion of integrity. It never lies. It never shades the truth. It never covers its ass or advances party interests over the truth.
Such thinking makes me SICK. It has no place on a conservative site. Yet it is ALL you have, and you stupidly imagine that it is THE winning argument. It is warm spit, but less useful.
And don’t give me this ‘Lingle’ business. I saw William Weld and Mitt Romney up close and personal. Republicans that try to survive in a very liberal, Dem-dominated state become even worse liars than the Dems. They are the dregs. So take your overworked, tiresome and meaningless Lingle-meme to a moonbat site and use it there. It doesn’t work here.
You overbearing, ego-inflated, sorry-debater, overt-Obot flaming moonbat leftist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.