Gov. Jan Brewer: Now this is a great way to save taxpayer dollars and provide security!

Your big government at work. Not quite a big fence, but…

President Barack Obama is meeting with activists who are pressing him for action on immigration legislation and Arizona’s tough new enforcement law.

The meeting Monday at the White House includes prominent labor leaders and Hispanic activist organizations, according to participating groups. It comes as Obama faces calls to move forward on comprehensive immigration legislation, something he’s pledged to act on despite long odds of success.

Activists were also expecting an update on the administration’s plans to challenge Arizona’s contentious new law that requires police officers to question a person’s immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally.

Obama is meeting Tuesday with Hispanic lawmakers.




  1. bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

    #14–Benjamin==I take it that “testing welfare benefits” is a developing dogma from the liebertarian branch of the bat crazy wing? I thought “testing” was about income levels, but you want to inject morality/religion into it huh?

    A few years ago I caught the tail end panel discussion on new ways of rethinking the welfare state. The speaker was on about the pro’s and con’s of just giving every poor person in America some minimum income===then let the free market manage the results. Haven’t heard or read about it since, but I would before recommending social policy. ((Just to whet your appetite and stroke your imagination: imagine if every black man had enough money to support himself. Would crime go down or up? Would the black man be seen now as valuable enough to marry? Would intact families go up or down? Lots of consequential effects when money is allowed to work its magic. White people too.))

    Its not right that welfare programs carry so much overhead. “Means testing” adds to that overhead and rather an outdated concept trying to identify the “deserving poor.” Whats the issue being addressed? Morality or Poverty?

    Yes, lots to think about.

    I knew the tattoo thing was overbroad. OK. Tattoo’s or Colors identifying the displayer as an “outlaw.” The law protects everyone. If you self identify as “outside” the law – – – well then?=what did you expect?

    Simple things. Free choice and consequences.

  2. Benjamin says:

    #34 bobbo said, “((Just to whet your appetite and stroke your imagination: imagine if every black man had enough money to support himself. Would crime go down or up? Would the black man be seen now as valuable enough to marry? Would intact families go up or down? Lots of consequential effects when money is allowed to work its magic. White people too.))”

    I must admit, I have respect for you all the sudden. You seem rational compared to most people, even though I disagree with you half the time.

    The immigration problem is hurting lower income US citizens, some of which are blacks. Instead of lower income people working at temp agencies and meat packing plants, employers hire illegals so they can pay them less. I also blame manufacturing jobs going over seas, but that is another can of worms.

    The problem is we let welfare replace the black man. When a welfare check is worth more than a husband with an income, then you cannot have intact families. Also the fact that it is hard for felons to get hired for even manual labor contributes greatly to the problem. And the problem gets passed to the next generation. I don’t think a direct payment to individuals is a good idea though, unless there is some make-work involved.

    “I knew the tattoo thing was overbroad.” I knew you were joking. I just didn’t know the significance of tattoos as conferring the status of outlaw.

  3. Benjamin says:

    #34 bobbo said, “I take it that “testing welfare benefits” is a developing dogma from the liebertarian branch of the bat crazy wing? I thought “testing” was about income levels, but you want to inject morality/religion into it huh? ”

    Not religion. I just don’t trust people who spend money on drugs instead of food for their starving children. Maybe we need to go back to government cheese and such or find some other means to make sure that their children are getting fed with the welfare money. If making sure they are spending their money on their children’s food before they go buy drugs is morality, so be it.

    Besides, the libertarian magazine (Reason Magazine) I read is against drug testing, even for welfare recipients. Nice try though.

  4. bobbo, not a student of the dismal science, but I am on a budget says:

    Well, Benjamin, let the love fest continue. I too only recently have found your contributions other than moronic but as love requires honesty, I must say you are still at about the 5% level. Maybe I have set the collar too loosely? ((Yes, totally joking–about the collar.))

    “I don’t think a direct payment to individuals is a good idea though, unless there is some make-work involved.” /// Again with the religion. So, you don’t want the benefits you recognize as possible because of the existential concern of the money being given without strings? You should think about that a long time Benji. What are you balancing? What are your priorities? What if it actually would work and provide intact families, less crime, less jails, etc? Still not worth the undeserved getting that money? You’d rather have the same people breaking into your house to earn their money? Really? Shake off that dogma. It will only hurt the first few times you do it.

    ““I knew the tattoo thing was overbroad.” I knew you were joking. I just didn’t know the significance of tattoos as conferring the status of outlaw.” /// Thank you. UP to ten per cent now. Yes, humor is based on a kernel of truth. As I wrote it, it was humor and I decided to stop there. The truth privately alluded to is problematic but in an alternate universe actually makes good common sense. How much an outlaw is a liebertarian? Lots of overlap there, too close to call until they get tats and tears.

    “Not religion. I just don’t trust people who spend money on drugs instead of food for their starving children.” /// I don’t think “trust” is what you issue is. Give money to a druggie and you can trust they will spend it on drugs. One aspect of religion, whether it be of the supernatural or the economic kind, is words get transposed in the dogma of the creed. You are too religious Benji. My own evangelizing of anti-theism is limited by my religion of libertarianism. I will confront/recognize/call out your religion, but the apostasy must be your own. I can only lead by example, such is my collar and leash.

  5. Benjamin says:

    #37 bobbo said, “‘I don’t think a direct payment to individuals is a good idea though, unless there is some make-work involved.’

    Again with the religion. So, you don’t want the benefits you recognize as possible because of the existential concern of the money being given without strings? You should think about that a long time Benji.”

    I am tempted by this idea. I just don’t know if it is a good idea.

    “What are you balancing?”
    Ayn Rand and Jesus.

    “What are your priorities? What if it actually would work and provide intact families, less crime, less jails, etc?”

    If it really does what you said it would, than I would support it. Again, I don’t know if it is a good idea or not. I’ve read about a society where they issued every citizen a Basic Living Stipend. It did not turn out well. Essentially it caused rampant inflation which in turn called for the Basic Living Stipend to need to be raised and the whole thing caused a vicious cycle. Although that society is fictional and I am not sure how that would work in actual practice. If it works I am for it, but if it doesn’t I am against it. How about that? You really can’t have it both ways, but that is how leaders are held accountable to the voters. You don’t get credit for trying hard but actually making the problem worse.

    “Still not worth the undeserved getting that money? You’d rather have the same people breaking into your house to earn their money? Really? Shake off that dogma. It will only hurt the first few times you do it.”

    I hate the word “deserve”. It could probably be replaced by the word “demand” and the meaning wouldn’t change. On the other hand, if I see someone who is hungry I should feed them, if I see someone who is naked I should clothe them. I should not turn over a portion of my income for government to distribute how they see fit.

    “You are too religious Benji.”
    Am I? I don’t think I am very religious and I feel bad about that.

  6. bobbo, not a student of the dismal science, but I am on a budget says:

    Benjamin==up to 15%, so do I admire your finding/recognizing/sticking to what is relevant.

    I take your dilema: Ayn Rand or Jesus and you don’t think you are too religious? Heh, heh. Religion is more than alters and singing hymns. Religion forms the “way” you think not just what you think. So, Jesus or the opposite of Jesus? Would that be the devil Benji?

    Do people need to develop their own innate skills and self actualize with as little support from anyone else as possible? Yea, verily. But do people live by themselves or in groups by necessity by no other alternative, by reality? Again, yes. So, is the self the only relevant issue or is how all the selves live together also relevant? I think so. Its not either/or==its the balance. Going for the either/or is religious thinking Benji==you are too religious in your thinking. Balance. Balance ideals with pragmatism. You see the bright lights in the distance. Go the distance.

    Deserved/demand==irrelevant. Who gets what is the issue.

    I’m not sold on the Basic Living Stipend. Just an interesting idea I heard the tail end of and I thought it present new fresh ideas not in the mainstream. Something to think about.

    Your notion of personal charity vs general societal benefit is not on the same continuum. Different issues entirely with very little overlap. YOU doing what you feel is right has little to no societal impact. I will be honest: I give nothing to charity thinking it should come from my taxes. Amusing? Yes, two different approaches each aimed at totally different things. But YOU can’t give food/shelter/clothing to every needing person who might choose to take it from you. That is where societal safety net programs play a role. Silly to pay %500 a month for personal security services and live in such a prison world when say pay $300 month and live in an open society? Or would the open society be “worth” $700 a month to you? To you/to everyone/to society? Travel to the suburbs in any capital city in South America. That the choice Ayn Rand brings. America well on its way. Then the walls between the undeserving rich and the rapacious poor will not be the middle class, but will be glass covered and made of brick. Not pretty.

    If you construct a society where “it makes sense” for me to steal from you then why shouldn’t I? Because you might offer me some personal charity? Today, I make the rational choice that the OUTLAW life is not for me. but how much (more) can you take away/deny me before my choices change?

    There is a real pragmatism in putting more Jesus in your program. Course, Jesus does not approve of pragmatism and wants his own 10% up front but that is why the real choice is between religious dogma and pragmatism.

    Keep your eyes open and you back covered.

  7. Dallas says:

    #24 LOL. “please boycott dallas”. What a buffoon you are.

    Also, stop responding to me you hypocrite! You need to lead by example!!

  8. Floyd says:

    I live n New Mexico. Let’s do some ‘splainin here:

    Illegal field workers in the Southwest typically do hand labor to pick lettuce, chiles, fruit, avocados, and other vegetables that have to be picked by hand. Almost none of these field workers are American.

    Assuming you actually kick out all these Mexican field workers, who are the legal residents in the US that will pick that food?

    Volunteers? You get paid 50 cents a bushel to pick in the hot sun…

  9. Tryin2unerstan says:

    #42 “Dayum! You must have aced logic in highschool (if you even got that as a subject). Let me know when you shoot your nose to spite your face.”

    Pedro, what does your comment mean?

  10. Rick Cain says:

    Don’t expect the Federal Government to do much. It has been infiltrated and bought by corporations, and big business needs its cheap illegal labor. They don’t have to provide health insurance and they can pay below federal minimum wages.

  11. The Pirate says:

    Dallas, like small Muslim genitalia, is an enigma wrapped in a fart. Of little consequence, much like a bothersome fly.

  12. Dallas says:

    #46 Interesting choice of words but odd combinations. You get a C because you used ‘enigma’ in a sentence correctly, else a D.

    BTW, my opinions are directed at the specific topic, factual references, brief and has a reasoned conclusion !!

    The issue is the sheeple in here are rightfully offended because they know it’s true!! Note Pedrito was at a loss of words when my Cuba point did not fir into his narrow mind! I rest my case!

  13. gmknobl says:

    I have a good idea. Let’s place anyone who voted for or signed 1070 just over the border, make them cross (underground electric fence included and ON) then refuse them entry claiming their English doesn’t sound right and they don’t have their papers – which of course they won’t because who carries around their birth certificate?

    Then we can do with them what we want, right?

    Take away their rights just as they want to take away other humans.

  14. Phydeau says:

    #41 I live n New Mexico. Let’s do some ‘splainin here:

    Illegal field workers in the Southwest typically do hand labor to pick lettuce, chiles, fruit, avocados, and other vegetables that have to be picked by hand. Almost none of these field workers are American.

    Assuming you actually kick out all these Mexican field workers, who are the legal residents in the US that will pick that food?

    Volunteers? You get paid 50 cents a bushel to pick in the hot sun…

    Thank you Floyd. My point exactly. There is no problem here. Things are going exactly as the powers that be want. This “problem” could be solved easily: Heavy penalties on corporations that use cheap illegal labor. Dry up the demand for cheap labor, and the illegals won’t come over. As simple as that.

    But we’ve seen that the corporations that control the government don’t want that. And in fairness to them, you don’t want that either, and I’m talking about you wingnut “patriots” babbling about foreign invaders. You want your cheap stuff that the illegals produce. You’d be howling the loudest if they really did ban illegals, and they had to pay Americans a decent wage to do all the shitwork the illegals do now, which would jack up our prices.

    This is a non-issue. It is working exactly the way it is supposed to be. And the Americans living at the border, who suffer from the violence… tough shit for you, the rest of us are willing for you to suffer to have our cheap stuff. Deal with it.

  15. Phydeau says:

    #50 well hi there little pedro… try a little reading comprehension. Let me quote myself:

    And in fairness to them, you don’t want that either, and I’m talking about you wingnut “patriots” babbling about foreign invaders.

    So, see, it’s not just corporations that are the problem. In fact, you could make the case that they aren’t the problem, that they’re just giving the public what they want, stuff to buy as cheap as possible.

    How about you, little pedro? Will you pay more for your produce in order to give Americans jobs? Put your money where your loud mouth is, amigo!

  16. Benjamin says:

    #50 “Right, the problem is ONLY corporations. Lefty sheeples are so boring.”

    The problem is the illegal immigrants. The solution is heavily fining any employer (not just corporations) that hires illegal immigrants.

    Phydeau is right in this respect, but I doubt he really wants to pay more for produce and implement that solution. I am willing to. I suppose the cost of produce going up could be mitigated by issuing temporary agricultural-only visas to enough Mexicans to pick the produce. Then they would be legal workers picking produce.

    Besides it makes room for some enterprising young lad at John Deere to make a produce harvester so it no longer has to be picked by hand. We no longer have crowds of workers picking cotton anymore. There are machines for that. Take away the illegal workers and make it cost effective to build a produce harvester machine.

    Amazing how the different posters think. I find myself agreeing somewhat with bobbo and phydeau.

  17. The Pirate says:

    #47 – Dallas.
    Since we are playing english teacher, I’ll give your response an F. One, because I can, and two, because you fail. It really is that simple.

    Your “reasoned conclusion” is ALWAYS THE SAME regardless of the topic, factual or otherwise.

    While I respect your right to remain dimwitted, your current fixation with how moral, righteous, and intelligent you think the Democrat Party is easily tarnishes anything constructive you may have to say.

  18. Dallas says:

    #53 Interesting feedback.. My reasoned conclusion is always the same? You mean my reasoned conclusions is always the opposite of yours? That may be true, but not always the same.

    The Dem Party is moral, righteous? Are you serious. For starters, have you been paying attention how the Christian Taliban has taken over GOP? How the GOP lives by legislating morality? We surely must have different definitions. Anyway, yes. We all have our opinions don’t we.

    I’ve already stated by position is to respond to the lies and hypocrisy of the GOP. And, oh please, while some of you pretend to be non-partisan, or unbiased.. it’s bull. It’s usually a feeble attempt in cherry picking irrelevant and context hidden shit from wingnutt internet sites to compose a position to support your bias. I of course, am truly open minded!

  19. bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

    Maybe I’m short sighted but I’ve always thought that if we actually enforced our immigration laws and HEAVILY FINED employers that the immediate, necessary, and reasonable response would be reinstitution of the bracero program.

    Nature and greed both abhor a vacuum, and greed hates paying minimum wages. I don’t see wages going up for asparagus pickers. I do see more crops grown for their compatibility with mechanical harvesting and not for taste though.

    Been years since I have bought a peach at my local store. Hard to find one that is not grainy and inedible. Got to go with cans on that one.

    I must admit I don’t “follow” most repeat posters here unless I dislike them, yes, mostly the liebertards. My general impression is that Dallas and Phydeau both post on point and relevantly and mostly I agree with both of them. How can you two be arguing now? I’d like to say you both rip on Pedro so how apart could you be?–but then I remember that everyone rips on Pedro so that doesn’t tell us much.

    My impression of this spat is that Dallas is being criticized for being a knee jerk liberal? And that criticism is that he always comes to the same conclusion regardless of facts and circumstances? So that means he mostly criticizes the Republicans? Well, that criticism just boils down to Dallas in fact always being correct in his postings. The Repugs, wingnuts, teabaggers, and BushCo/Cheney are all anti-American a-holes “of the first proportion.”

    Who can disagree with that?

  20. Dallas says:

    #55 What Bobbo said! I’m glad someone has the time to compose such poetry. I need to get back to work to pay for Bush’s war in Iraq and little time for this. Also, my spelling sucks which would be easy target for the sheeple that dismiss the point and focus on drivel.

    I credit bobbo for being the more even keeled in here. I like Pedro too because I wholly support those with special needs.

  21. bobbo, libertarian proponent of the Const and Bill of Rights says:

    #57–Pedro==you really don’t make any sense, other than clearly displaying your animosity, cute as it is, for everyone else here.

    Can you confirm this all springs from Dallas Post #20? and your revealing post in response #21.

    In that post, Dallas clearly makes a nuanced balanced statement that you actually agree with but then reject for its “obvious hypocrisy.” So, when Dallas is wrong, he’s wrong, and when he’s right, he’s a hypocrite? Is that your clear headed analysis of a sheeple or have you been transfixed by a mirror?

    You know Pedro, when you aren’t part of the solution, you really are part of the problem. When Dallas states something you agree with, shouldn’t you voice support? Otherwise who is following the implanted voices in their heads?

    All this projection. Humorous.

  22. Phydeau says:

    #57 Aw, little pedro, avoiding a direct question in #51. Disappointing, but not surprising. You’ve got a ways to go. And Benjamin (#52) I would actually be in favor of paying more for produce knowing that the workers are being paid a reasonable wage. There’s more to life than money.

  23. Somebody says:

    bobbo, The Don Juan of partner-less loving said:

    “Shoot anyone with a tattoo on sight.”

    What? After I was an evil “gun nut” for posting a picture of a Colt 45 in a thread about child-rapists?

    Who is regulating your meds?

  24. bobbo, we think with words says:

    Somebody–thats actually a clever nom de flame you crafted there. Kudos. As to your complaint==read the rest of the thread and get back if you have any remaining questions. As to the Colt 45 and child rapists, I think I generally approving of the two problems solved at once, so once again, after a single flash of creativity, you seem to be witless.

  25. Somebody says:

    bobbo, we think with words said,

    “Somebody–thats actually a clever nom de flame you crafted there. Kudos.”

    Thanks, some credit has to go to Scott Adams.

    “…you seem to be witless.”

    Now I know what it feels like to truly belong.

    With names like,

    “bobbo, to the left of Obama”

    and

    “bobbo, libertarian proponent of the Const and Bill of Rights”

    in the same thread no less, you are inviting some lampooning.

    That, and the fact that, to quote my nephew, “You are wrong and a fool.”

  26. Phydeau says:

    #60 Not bad, little pedro! The only problem with your statement is that no one has ever come up with credible evidence of voter fraud involving illegal immigrants. AGs of the various border states have looked into it and found nothing. If you have evidence, feel free to post it here.

  27. Phydeau says:

    #66 evidence?

  28. Phydeau says:

    #68 You make an assertion, you provide evidence. That’s how it works in the real world.

  29. bobbo, we think with words says:

    Somebody–you are the first to state the obvious==thank you. But after the lampooning, I also enjoy a challenge.

    Pedro–challenge: offer some evidence, line of thinking, arguments in support, a link. If “everything” is a sheeple then no thinking goes into posting that universal fact. You actually would benefit yourself with just a little bit more effort.

  30. howard beal says:

    What Will Obama Do To Secure Arizona’s Border?

    as much or more than any Pres before him but many will cry foul because what they want is un-American.

    sorry foul criers we are a nation of legal and illegal immigrants have been sense 1492/1776/ ect.

    even GOP Hero Reagan could not solve this one to your satisfaction.
    l


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5520 access attempts in the last 7 days.