Reactionary politics, defined.

Grahamnesty is just tacking right temporarily for a pander…He’s still a dem at heart, just trying to fend off primary opponents that may pop up for 2014.

Sen. Graham, I genuinely like and respect you and support many of your positions. But this is dumb.

I don’t care what his motivation is, he’s absolutely right.

Is today the day the righttards want to return to the “original intent” of the Constitution? Or is today the day to introduce Amendments for things they don’t like about the Constitution?

I can never get their hypocrisies straight.

Sean, perhaps you can shed some light?

I thought Republicans were not “activists’ who wanted to “re-interpret” the constitution as per Jeff “Off My Marbles” Sessions. You wingnuts prove us right every day. You only like the Constitution when it agrees and fits with your dogmatic propaganda. IDIOTS!

Whatever, this RINO is just trying to SCORE POINTS with all of the Right-Thinking Americans that he’s alienated!!!1 He thinks that just because he loves KILLING BABIES he can even it out by deporting MEXICAN CHILDREN!!!1 Too little, TOO LATE, Grahamnesty!!!!!!111

EdinNJ said:
Is today the day the righttards want to return to the “original intent” of the Constitution? Or is today the day to introduce Amendments for things they don’t like about the Constitution? I can never get their hypocrisies straight. Sean, perhaps you can shed some light?

Well, I don’t really consider myself a right-winger, and I can list all the reasons why. But you’d probably not believe me. I don’t really understand your point. If I (or you or anybody else) thinks there’s something in the Consitution that needs to be changed, then why not advocate changing it? It’s exceedingly difficult to accomplish, but are you saying a person–right or left–shouldn’t even voice an opinion on the matter?

Barry has got to be afraid!

BO’s at it again:

NRO: Memo circulating on Capitol Hill shows how Obama might legalize some illegals without Congress

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress…
Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.
The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/29/nro-memo-circulating-on-capitol-hill-shows-how-obama-might-legalize-some-illegals-without-congress/

Yeah, I have to agree with Senator Graham. People do not realize when someone has a child and cannot afford the child the tax payers pay for the child (Welfare, Food Stamps, and etc.). This is a truism many illegal immigrants come over to this country and have a child believing they cannot be deported. Listen to the news as you will hear about how families will be split up because the kids are legal but the parents are not. I ask who fault is that? Having a child for your own livelihood is wrong. It is not fair to the child because often the child is not taken cared of properly b/c the mother discovers having a child is a business (free housing, govt. assistance, and etc.). The child becomes a mere money bag.

If you don’t like what this guy has to say, just wait till next week. He’ll probably endorse the opposite.

Senator Graham, another Moonie. He was there when his collegue put a crown on Moon’s head.

MichelleF said:
BO’s at it again: NRO: Memo circulating on Capitol Hill shows how Obama might legalize some illegals without Congress According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress…Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/29/nro-memo-circulating-on-capitol-hill-shows-how-obama-might-legalize-some-illegals-without-congress/

Off topic. Again.

AT FOX NEWS, HONESTY
IS NOT OUR POLICY!

What a piker! Man up! Your colleague, Jim Demented, wants to sterilize all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and brown. But not the White ones.

AT FOX NEWS, HONESTY
IS NOT OUR POLICY!

The Real Royal King said:
What a piker! Man up! Your colleague, Jim Demented, wants to sterilize all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and brown. But not the White ones.

AT FOX NEWS, HONESTY
IS NOT OUR POLICY!

You’re a liar. He voted yes on amend s607 for HR 1105 which restricted funding to UN population control if it funded coercive abortion and forced sterilization in places such as China.

THE REAL ROYAL KING
BEING A LIAR IS HIS POLICY

You don’t need a change to the Constitution as the answer already exists in the 14th Amendment. The simple phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should settle the question.

Foreign nationals in the US owe their allegiance to their home country, not the US. And, their newborn children are subject to the same jurisdiction as the parents. At worst you could offer dual citizenship to the newborn and at the age of 18, or so, that child, now an adult, would be required to choose one country. Until then, in an effort to keep families together, if the parents are here illegally, they can all be deported. No “ripping a family apart” excuse to violate the law.

As such you don’t need a change to the Constitution which would take years, if ever, to accomplish. A simple law, clarifying and enforcing the clause, would suffice.

zombietimeshare said:
You don’t need a change to the Constitution as the answer already exists in the 14th Amendment. The simple phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should settle the question. Foreign nationals in the US owe their allegiance to their home country, not the US. And, their newborn children are subject to the same jurisdiction as the parents. At worst you could offer dual citizenship to the newborn and at the age of 18, or so, that child, now an adult, would be required to choose one country. Until then, in an effort to keep families together, if the parents are here illegally, they can all be deported. No “ripping a family apart” excuse to violate the law. As such you don’t need a change to the Constitution which would take years, if ever, to accomplish. A simple law, clarifying and enforcing the clause, would suffice.

Can you cite a precendent? I understand there is one but in my limited ability to search, I cannot find it.