.

                     

"Immigration"                                                               

 

 

 Page added November 21, 2014

Last updated July 18, 2016
Latest [and minor] change January 11, 2017

 
 


©2014, 2011, PLUSdoesNOTequalAND Publishing:

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.   No material from USANN.US may be stored in any form or manner now known or to be known in the future without the advance written permission of the owner of the copyright, save as specified here.  This work is readily available on the internet on the copyright owners’ website, to be viewed there, for a limited time.  NO: STORAGE, DUPLICATION, MODIFICATION OR DERIVATIVE WORK, SALE, RESALE, OR REDISTRIBUTION, NOR ANY COMMERCIAL USE WHATSOEVER, IS AUTHORIZED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. 



 

We continue to petition to The White House in support for “Hierarchy of Law”, largely designed to keep UN & similar attempts against US sovereignty, as regarding arms and the Law of the Sea Treaty, from ever allowing the UN or others to dictate to the US, while still allowing the US to adopt positions in line with such.  Do you really want the UN telling us what to do about an invasion at our border, for example?

 

Please help this effort to protect US Sovereignty and The US Constitution.  More, here.  Or, take our word for it and immediately go to The White House site by way of our "Action Items" page to sign
[making use of the WhiteHouse.gov site ensures that nobody need leave any information here, potentially saves us a lot of work, and provides opportunity for visitors to also choose from a variety of other petitions that they may also wish to support...or not].

Let’s get this thing over the 100K signatures-in-30-days threshold for a response…in record time.


We need 100,000 signatures, and would rather have twice that  -- how about a half million?
 
 
 

 

We've a companion petition also accessible through the "Action Items" page with the objective of maintaining and even improving this petition access as a tool for responsive government [novel concept, huh?].  Signatures also requested for that one.


 

 

+ ≠ &  


 
We acknowledge that we are not, and have never been nor expect to ever be, fans of the individual generally known as Barack Obama.  We cannot say with absolute certainty how much of what follows is a result of that, and how much is demonstrative of why we are not fans.  What we can be sure of, without a doubt, is that we were offended, to a degree rarely known in decades, in almost every imaginable way, by the remarks on “immigration” from that individual delivered on November 20, 2014.  We have done such treatments before on a couple of earlier speeches from the guy, but this one is a real “piece of work”.

 
 
The November 20, 2014 speech from the guy in The White House, annotated:

 


My fellow Americans,

This guy still hasn’t figured out that the United States of America is not “America”.  The term was once significantly more appropriate than it is today and, but with the geopolitical realities it is time to cease the sloppy but convenient and incredibly arrogant use of the term “America” when the reference is to just this one country, as opposed to the some three dozen nations in the Americas.

tonight I’d like to talk

Again, the sloppy exercise of language for convenience.  Our reaction to it is “so who or what is stopping you”?  These things are relatively easily reckoned around, with such constructions as “tonight, I speak to you”.

with you

Like there could be a dialogue here?  He is speaking to, not with.

about immigration.

Once more, the parsing of language.  The truth of the matter is that this is not about immigration.  Immigration is a legal process by which people enter one nation from another on a permanent basis.  Migration, and invasion, are more appropriate terms for the situation.  But the guy giving the speech is looking for an emotional response rather than logic and is intentionally using words and phrases to garner a sympathetic response.

For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants

The tradition spoken of here has to do with politics: off and the immigrants themselves were not welcomed, but largely discriminated against in almost every form.

 from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations.

Finally, a truth.  This is been the source, at least a major contributor to, “American exceptionalism”.  This is a form of the sprinkling of truth necessary to the formation of good/defective propaganda…  Which this speech is intended to be.

It’s kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial.

It has contributed to these things, but it is arguably hardly a direct cause and effect situation.

It has shaped our character

Again a contributing factor but not likely the sole cause.

 as a people with limitless possibilities.

Remarkably presumptive and, arguably, wishful thinking.  Such a perspective may come considerably easier to somebody who has spent most of his life as essentially a child of privilege, and perhaps not so easily the most everybody else (think about those who have been without employment despite their best efforts, for a year, or two, or more).

People not trapped by our past,

More phrasing to engender sympathy.

 but able to remake ourselves as we choose.

A possibility, to some extent, for some, perhaps.  Another very limited perspective on display here.  Ask the individual looking for work who have to put down on employment applications that there is a felony in the background; and many respects, this country’s population is not is kindly, welcoming, friendly, or forgiving, as the speaker would have the audience believe.  It is just another part of setting tone to sympathy and acceptance.

But today, our immigration

Again with a convenient euphemism!  It never ends with this guy.

 system is broken,

We have heard that “the system” is “broken” endlessly, as has pretty much everybody else who pays much attention to the news.  We have yet to hear many specifics…despite a high cognition factor for some 40 years.  What we know of the situation suggests that, like the toaster that is not working, it could just be that it isn’t getting what it needs to work; in the case the toaster, electricity, in the case of gov’t dealing with persons illegally in the country, it might just be a question of available resources.

 and everybody knows it.

Another presumption, largely just demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less.

Another touch if truth, again dropped in perhaps just to keep people listening.

All of us

This is another device of language intended to lend credence to the promoted opinion as being in fact a universal truth.  With over 300,000,000 people in the country, it is highly unlikely that anything would qualify as such.

 take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America

“America” again.

without taking on the responsibilities

Notice how the new responsibilities are not defined?  Just what “responsibilities” are referred to?  For example, isn’t voting, from an informed and thoughtful perspective, a “responsibility” of living in this Republic?

 of living in America.

And again “America”.  The drumbeat continues a purpose; it is a part of the effort to imply, repeatedly, unity…and unity of thought.

 And undocumented immigrants

The people referred to with this euphemism are obviously persons illegally in the country.  But are they in fact “undocumented immigrants”?  Well, some may be.  Others, are almost assuredly not.  There was in fact a program of the Federal government for some time (it may still be in a fact; we don’t know) which was designed to assist persons not legally in the country in obtaining a mortgage.  Anybody who is ever tried to get a mortgage knows how much documentation is involved.  As to the question of “immigrants”, many people who come to this country illegally have no intention of staying permanently and becoming a part of the society; their intent is to take advantage of the economics’ here for awhile, in order to return to their homelands with ill-gotten gains that would give them considerable economic advantage there.  It is also often reported that as much as 40% of the population illegally in the country results from persons coming to the country legally and then “going out of status”, as in overstaying a visa.  In such cases, either the visa was obtained fraudulently because they did intend to stay rather than leave, or they never intended to be “immigrants” in the first place.

who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities

While the “responsibilities” remained undefined, this is a wonderfully nonspecific assertion reliant on specific numbers that nobody is even pretending to be able to offer because they cannot be known, while it continues the drumbeat for sympathy.

 see little option

This must be a gap in the pretended “limitless possibilities” from earlier.  The last time we looked, there were almost always “options” to anybody in any given situation.  Those options might not be particularly pleasant, but they do exist.

 but to remain in the shadows,

“Shadows” that these individuals have placed themselves in

 or risk

They’re “risks” willfully assumed

their families

Presuming they have families in this country. 

 being torn apart.

It should be noted, then when they left whatever family they had in their countries of origin, they pour their families apart.  It should also be noted that many families they created while illegally in this country, a direct result of their own voluntary actions.  In some instances, marriages may have been entered into not only fraudulently in terms of legalities, but in violation of the deletion ship itself in the lack of disclosure of status as being illegally in the nation.

It’s been this way for decades. And for decades we haven’t done much about it.

Sprinkle; sprinkle.

 When I took office, I committed to fixing

This is being questioned all over the place, wondering about the commitment that did nothing about it in his first two years, when both chambers of the legislature were held by his party.

this broken immigration system.

It’s still not “immigration”.

 And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders.

Sort of acknowledges that it isn’t about “immigration”, at least not entirely.  It also provides credence to the position that the first part of this Gordian Knot that should be dealt with, is security of the borders…which can be dealt with as a separate issue.

Today we have more agents

Just how many, and relative to the task, is left to the imagination, which has been softened up like a beachhead undergoing incessant naval and arial bombardment for a week.

and technology

what kind, with what expected and what actual results?

deployed

How?  At random?  Across what part of the border, by percentage and by activity?

to secure our southern border

What about the rest of the assignment?  The Canadian borders, the seacoasts, international airports?

 than at any time in our history. And over the past six years illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half.

Really?  Another unsupported assertion…not that this administration would ever “fudge the numbers”.  Right.  By the way, cut in half from what: historical averages?  The peak on record?  A little perspective, if you please.  Further, this assertion infers this has occurred, intentionally, from the actions of the speaker; but are there other factors at play here, little things like the economy and unemployment? [You can bet there are.]

Although this summer there was a brief spike

A dramatic spike, that was known to be coming, based on moves by the Admnistration to prepare for it.

 in unaccompanied children

reportedly a goodly number of those “children” are mid- to late-teens, many being gang affiliated.

being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is actually lower than it’s been in nearly two years.

That’s a bit disjointed, and we are not at all sure what it really means beyond again seeking to bolster sympathy…including for him.

Overall the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s.

More unsupported assertion.

Those are the facts.

Wouldn’t you like to see/hear some substantion, including an indication of the methodology behind the establishment of some of these “facts”?s

Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix.

He worked with the Democrats under the thumb of Harry Reid in The Senate.

 And last year 68 Democrats, Republicans, and independents came together to pass a bipartisan

For this guy, any participation by even a single Republican, and no matter how much the history of the individual might indicate RINO as opposed to conservative that individual might be, is “bipartisan”.  Technically that may be a fact; but it is a fact well-divorced from Truth [which requires perspective].

bill in the Senate. It wasn’t perfect. It was a compromise.

True enough, on all three counts.  Sprinkle.

 But it reflected common sense.

Oh how we love that term as bandied about by politicians!  What it means in such context is: anybody who doesn’t agree with this position is entirely devoid of common sense; delusional; potentially sociopathic.

 It would have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents,

From?  Over what course of time?  With the same standards as have been typical of earlier agents?  We recall a bill some time ago that authorized hiring of 750 new agents; it just didn’t provide any funding to pay or equip them, so they were not hired.

 while giving undocumented immigrants

euphemism discredited earlier.

 a pathway to citizenship,

This suggests there wasn’t one before, which, as we understand it, flies in the face of reality; there has long been a way, if one was willing to take the shot; it wasn’t a guarantee of getting what the individual illegal might have wanted, but it was a chance, “a path”.

 if they paid a fine,

How much, based on what, related to what?

 started paying their taxes

To be fully paid, when?  And if not?  By the way, how would those taxes be determined?  What happens to those who paid the wages “under the counter” in violation of law?

and went to the back of the line.

Seems a bit of Reason has crept in.  [How’d that happen?]

And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.

Who, specifically?  Grow the economy by how much, as opposed to what happens if nothing is done, or if something else is done?  Same for deficit reduction.  Would that be “experts” like MIT economist Gruber?  Pretend we are from Missouri, and show us the criteria, the logic, the statistics, that support such a position.  But then, this far along in the lullaby, most people are supposed to be in REM sleep.

Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of bill a simple yes or no vote,

No mention of some 300 bills waiting Senate action, including, as we understand it, some dealing with one or more aspects of the Gordian Knot.

it would have passed with support from both parties.

With that good a crystal ball, perhaps he should be Emperor?

 And today it would be the law.

Maybe…if he liked it enough to sign it…and Court challenges hadn’t stopped it…and no action had been taken by Congress to reverse.

But for a year and a half now Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.

See above.

Now I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law.

Oh goody!  More “common sense”[, you idiots].

 But until that happens,

The infallible crystal ball has determined that it will happen.

  there are actions I have the legal authority to take

Careful, junior: you have stated, publicly, dozens of times, that your Power in this regard is limited.

 as president,

You may sit in the office, and most people accept you as such, but we are not alone in wondering how history will treat the question.

 the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me,

Another assertion, with many detractors; the circumstances were substantially different, and the actions proposed/announced are substantially different, and in more than degree.

that will help make our immigration system

Reliant once again on a misnomer, a means to, yes, deceive.

 more fair and more just.

Gee, the final arbiter of what is fair and what is just, has spoken.  Wow.  Frankly, we remain unconvinced; it’s a credibility thing.

Tonight I’m announcing those actions.

Oh.  We wondered what you were here for.  Of course, we also wondered why you didn’t “announce those actions” on any number of other occasions that would have met earlier schedules you had set for such announcements.

First, we’ll build on our progress at the border

You have claimed progress, but without substantiation.  So now it is a given?

with additional resources

This junk would never hold up as law, as it is simply too vague…intentionally so.  It seems that, as an attorney, the speaker would have cause to know that such a characteristic is held against a claimant.  What kinds of resources?  When?

for our law enforcement personnel

Who else?

so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings

We strongly suggest a qualifier here: “better” between “can” and “stem”.

 and speed the return of those who do cross over.

As we understand it, the greatest problem in speedy return is the existence of law and procedure contrary to doing so…like the “catch and release” and “probation” that releases such persons into the population until a Court hearing…for which some 70% to 90% never bother to show up.

Second, I’ll make it easier

Having been a legislator, should this speaker not understand that the responsibilities and powers of legislators and of administrators are different?  And which are appropriate to which?

and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy,

The crystal ball is at work again.

as so many business leaders proposed.

So, some “business leaders” hold the answers?  Which ones, by what criteria?  Who decides (by what criteria?  In fact, who decides on the criteria?).

Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly

Fox guarding henhouse; he will decide.

 with the millions

How many, and how determined?

 of undocumented immigrants

Gee, if you can’t call it by its right name, what else are you hiding?

 who already live in our country.

It could be readily argued that dealing responsibly with such persons would be to open season on them.  We don’t think that would be best, but it can be argued.

 

I want to

Again, who is stopping you?

say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy.

Accepted

Even as we are a nation of immigrants,

Are we really?  Since reportedly some 75% or more of us were actually born here, that seems, well, inaccurate at best.

we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers

Euphemism alert.

broke our immigration laws,

Breaking of laws makes one a law-breaker, aka, a criminal.

and I believe that they must be held accountable,

There's an idea.

especially those who may be dangerous.

Should these people be held less accountable?  The form of accountability might best reflect the severity of the offense(s), but the accountability needs to be consistent in application.

That’s why over the past six years deportations of criminals are up 80 percent,

As there has been some question about the definitions of  “deportations” and of “criminals” in this context, clarification is called for…along with perspective regarding “80 percent”.

 and that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security.

People who live right along the border might have a different perspective on what constitutes a threat to our security, than that of a person who is guarded 24/7/365.

 Felons,

Oops, another moment of Reason.

 not families.

So, what happens to the family of a felon?

 Criminals,

Let’s see: that would mean “law-breakers”, right?  OK: tell us, please, what a person illegally in the country, can do, legally?

 not children.

Note: children are not people.  And a “child” can, apparently, under rules as put forth by our fearless leader [as in “Dear Leader” (Korea)], stay here to be taken care of by the good citizenry whether said citizenry likes it (or can afford it) or not, without regard to any other circumstance?  By the way: did you ever meet anybody who wasn’t a child of somebody?

Gang members,

Sort of makes sense, but, even if a “child”?

 not a mom

But maybe a dad?  What about singles?  Marrieds without children?

who’s working

Isn’t it illegal to work in this country while illegally here?

 hard

Some, maybe; some, maybe not so hard.  Ooops: our error; the crystal ball takes precedence to logic.

to provide for her kids.

Now, we think a responsible speech-writeer would have found a way around this kind of silliness: not “her” but “the”.

 We’ll prioritize,

This is a bit frightening: he is announcing he will prioritize…which suggests he hasn’t been to date.  Look, we’ve suggested in the past and still believe, he is a loose cannon: we never expected a tacit acknowledgement from him on it.

   just like law enforcement does every day.

Another statement of the obvious; a tiny sprinkling of Truth to pretend some association with Truth.

But even as we focus on deporting criminals,

We have already established that they are all criminals.  Perhaps he means “violent” criminals.  But then we’d need some explanation for the 36K serious offenders let loose last year?

the fact is millions

How many?  Oh that’s right: we only use nebulous terms that permit maximum unaccountability.  Goes to the concept of being vague, noted above.

 of immigrants

Euphemism alert!

 in every state, of every race

probably, though a weak argument if only because of the avoidance of statistics and methodology.

 and nationality

weaker still: there may indeed be illegals in this country from every other country on the planet, but it seems a stretch that there would be some from every other country in each state.  We’re being intentionally picky: your tax dollars are being spent for speech-writers, and we think you should get high-quality stuff for your money.  This does not qualify as high-quality.

 still live here illegally.

Duh.

And let’s be honest,

Hey, that’ll be different, right?  What have we been doing so far?

 tracking down, rounding up and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic.

Maybe.  Question for you: if the lives of your children depended on it, do you think you could find a way to make it at least a bit more “realistic”?  If you had 4 hours to do it or one of the kids would be beheaded in front of you?  It might be a tall order, but you did seek the job, right?

 Anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t being straight with you.

We have somebody here who’s looked at this mess for about 40 years, just because they cared [no pay], and they believe that almost all of this can be handled, most of it through encouragement of “self-deportation”…to the point at which actual deportation might become a true rarity.

It’s also not who we are as Americans.

Inappropriate use of “Americans” aside: thank you for once again having not only taken a “one size fits all” approach, but having determined which size it will be.  It would seem that anybody not quite fitting can be “trimmed” to suit?  Has this guy ever entertained the idea that somebody might legitimately and even correctly disagree with him?  [We will put our credentials as Usanns, even as “Americans”, up against his, any day of the week.  Personal reaction: what a jerk!]

After all, most of these immigrants have been here a long time.

Again improper use of a term, and no substantiation for the assertion.  These are people he has just stated operate "in the shadows".  So what is reliably known about them, particularly that qualifies for such blanket assessments?  [By what study for whom, using what criteria, ad nausea?]

 They work hard

Again, some may, and some may not.  Hitlers’ minister of propaganda had nothing on the way this administration can repeat a lie.

Often

The nebulous term, again, and again to engender a sympathetic emotional response.

 in tough, low paying jobs.

This, too, may be true, at least to some extent.  And is that not by their own choice?

 They support their families.

Statistics we’ve seen suggest that may be true for a relative few.  Many if not most rely to some if not large extent on the largesse of the taxpayer.

 They worship at our churches.

“They” use “our”.  How the speaker could say this stuff with a straight face is amazing.  We think he has another career awaiting him as an actor [can you say “Academy Award performance”?]

 Many of the kids are American born

Once again with “American”.  On the other hand, most probably are born in “America”; North or South or Central.  

or spent most of their lives here.

Another actual fact, thrown in conveniently but in a manner to further the emotional pull.  But who is most responsible for that?  If we leave our doors unlocked, we own some of the responsibility for the disappearance of things when we are not home or watching; but it is the person who comes through those doors, who is not authorized to do so, who is most responsible.  In many of these instances, people have been brought into this country as minors and they are then perhaps least responsible; but those who brought them were almost assuredly not minors.  And those who have reached the age of majority while here?  They found out about their status at some point, almost without exception, and if they are in fact the kind of responsible individuals this country would welcome, they will have taken every step available to them to remedy the situation…not just those that might be convenient or “guaranteed” to get what they want.

And their hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours.

Hopes and dreams, maybe.  Patriotism?  A good deal more questionable.  The Founding Fathers knew that, too, even so long ago.  Divided loyalties were, based on their work, to be avoided at all costs.  [We think “divided loyalties” is a contradiction in terms.]

As my predecessor, President Bush, once put it, they are a part of American life.

This guy will invoke the name of his arch-enemy and/or the devil himself, if he thinks it might further his agenda.  [And there is that “American” again; it’s a 2-fer: unity, and patriotism.]

Now here is the thing. We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules.

An interesting premise, that works for most…obviously not all, as we have a lot of people locked up.

 We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded.

Perhaps it would be best to not just expect [expectations lead to disappointments] but demand.

 So we’re going to offer

“We” who?  We, at this venue, would prefer to not “offer”.  Period,

 the following deal:

“Deal” implies something for something.  This could get interesting.  Plea bargaining?

If you’ve been in America

Use of this term, in an inappropriate manner, is becoming only boring; not conducive to disabusing us of positions we’ve put a lot of work into gaining.

 more than five years.

Why “five” rather than “ten”?  Or “two”?  Well, it must sound good…to some.  But how will that length of time be “verified”?

If you have children who are American citizens

“American” again.  Think the speaker doesn’t know the weight of the word?  Look back to his remarks departing the OAS meeting a few years ago; he didn’t use it.  Other than “birthright citizenship”, we’re not sure how often that might be a concern; rarely, to be sure.  Also, this might open a can of worms he either hasn’t thought of, or he figured he could “Gruber”: a new look at 14th Amendment birthright citizenship by SCOTUS, which just might reverse the foolish and errant ruling that granted it to all born on US territory.

 or illegal residents.

What would that have to do with it?

If you register, pass a criminal background check

OK, so the criminals who have broken law coming here and then break law endlessly with everything they do, are going to subject themselves to [and, as we understand it, at their expense] a criminal background check?

and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes,

“Willing” is one thing: what about “ability”?

 you’ll be able to apply

Aha!  These invaders and/or criminals will be able to “apply”.  The guy generally referred to as Obama said early on in this noise that something was just not realistic.  We suggest the same is at least as true for this silliness.

  to stay in this country

they are already staying in this country

 temporarily

but the argument is endlessly about “immigration”, a permanent stay.

 without fear of deportation.

Just how much “fear” is there, and why?  If you fear something enough, you do something about it.

 You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

That is, as we understand it, available under current law.  The only thing stopping such folk from “getting right with the law” is convenience and a guarantee that they get what they want…for having invaded or at least carrying scofflaw to new heights.

 That’s what this deal is.

Some deal.  While the objective of dealing is theoretically a win-win, we see no winners here.

Now let’s be clear

PLEASE!

 about what it isn’t.

If it was clear what it was, would this be necessary?  Is that the point of being so vague so often?

This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently.

Well, we don’t see it as a deal and we have no idea how length of time in country will be determined, but it sounds good.  But is sounding good, sufficient?  Court challenges to arbitrary dates and time-frames in the amnesty of IRCA 1986 wound up negating those provisions.  Guess that is unknown to the guy and his speechwriter, or they just don’t think it needs to be noted let alone addressed.  [“Gruber”]

 It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future.

“America”.  Just for the sake of good writing practice, couldn’t this be varied with an occadional “United States of America” or a “this country” or the like?

 It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently,

Things that even the not-emperor knows and has acknowledged that he cannot do.

or offer the same benefits that citizens receive.

Again we suggest looking to the results of the last amnesty: most benefits were granted, if not by Congress, by the Courts.

 Only Congress can do that.

Oops. Another mis-statement, what some might call a bald-faced lie.  The Courts can and do change the rules remarkably often.

 All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

Such a “deal”.  Beyond reasonable “prosecutorial discretion”, this provides, as far as we can tell, virtually nothing, and to nobody…at least in an above-board fashion; the benefits will go to the law-breakers, at the expense of the law-abiding.

I know some of the critics of the action call it amnesty.

True enough.  Some people see it that way.

 Well, it’s not.

So far, you couldn’t prove that by us.

 Amnesty is the immigration system we have today.

OK: got it.  Once again, change the language sufficiently, control the debate, win without regard to and usually despite merit.

Millions of people live here without paying their taxes

Advocates of what we see as overly generous and kindly proposals for solution to this mess are prone to insist that these folk pay far more in taxes than what they draw from the system.  Sorry, can’t have it both ways.  We’ve never understood the claim, because it is almost always accompanied by further insistence that these people make little or no money.

 or playing by the rules,

by their choice; nobody is holding a gun to their head and telling them they must break the rules of this society.

 while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.

Hark: another grain of truth.  Gotta have one once in a while.

 That’s the real amnesty,

Hogwash!  Another instance of changing the language in order to win the argument.  If this guy was a practicing attorney, he’d be the reason some are called “shyster”.

 leaving this broken system the way it is.

We take exception.  Leaving it as it is, until rationality comes into play, is not amnesty in any sense of the word; everybody currently subject to fines/incarceration/deportation, is still subject to those.

 Mass amnesty would be unfair.

Duh. Yet that is what is proposed/announced here, despite the protestations to the contrary.  It may be a temporary amnesty, but amnesty nonetheless.

Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary it to our character.

Restatement of earlier hogwash.  In legalese, “asked and answered”.  Most deportation can be skirted by encouraging “self-deportation”: most people in this country theoretically based in the rule of law figure that breaking law is to have unpleasant consequences.

What I’m describing is accountability.

Another “mis-statement”  -- or bald-faced lie.  The big lie repeated often enough.  Propaganda.  Not legitimate argument, but an abuse of language and argument both.

A common sense

Echo.  To disagree is obviously proof of lack of common sense.  And on and on.

 middle- ground approach.

Only if “middle-ground” is defined as anything between the known absolute extremes.  Under such a definition  -- controlling language, again --  this would indeed be “middle-ground” since it only cuddles up to an extreme.

 If you meet the criteria,

Nebulous, unprovable, and probably a moving target [Courts]

 you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

Guess our “Dear Leader” subscribes to the “tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em, tell ‘em, then tell ‘em what you told ‘em” school of speech.

 If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.

History does not support that contention.  Some 36K times last year alone.

If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally,

Suggests intent.  Can you say “Tahmooressi”?

 your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.

We will see.  We do not recommend holding breath.

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful,

So he says now: at least a couple of dozen times he has said they are not, reportedly as recently as within the last month.

 they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every single Democratic president for the past half century.

Apples and watermelons are both fruit.  Most comparisons, however, are probably not reasonable.

And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better

Pretense of authority confers no authority…but it may sway those who are asleep.

 or question the wisdom of me acting

We are not in Congress, but question the wisdom of this guy acting in any way, shape, or form, save perhaps in that next career we suggested earlier.

 where Congress has failed,

Congress not acting as he would have Congress act, is a failure?  We thought it might just be Congress doing its job.

I have one answer: Pass a bill.

A bill was passed.  Several of them, as we understand it.  By The House.  But The Senate has not taken action on those bills.  Oh, that’s right: the Senate bill is what you want and the House bill is not, therefore the House is wrong and causing Congressional failure.  Repeat the lies…endlessly.

I want to work with both parties

And we have a bridge to sell you

 to pass a more permanent legislative solution.

Still wants to be both Administrator and legislature…not just “a legislator”, but the whole legislature.  Even so, his target is “more permanent”; does not stir confidence, here.

 And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.

Presumption of necessity of what he is doing.  We are not convinced.  We are not even convinced that he is convinced.  This is a political ploy, and little else.

Meanwhile, don’t let a disagreement over a single issue be a deal breaker on every issue.

 That’s not how our Democracy works,

The “Constitutional law Professor” doesn’t know that this is not a democracy but a Republic?

and Congress shouldn’t shut down our government again just because we disagree on this.

Well, now we know what the political ploy is about: it’s really about the budget mess that Congress has put itself in by not getting a budget in place on time, now operating under a Continuing Resolution that runs out on December 11.

Americans are tired of gridlock.

Some, no doubt.  All, in accord with the assertion?  We wouldn’t bet your life on it, let alone something relatively valuable like a common penny; the population is hardly monolithic in anything, let alone opinion on anything.

What our country needs right now is a common purpose, a higher purpose.

So saith the not-emperor?  Our read on stuff is that most people in this country are probablysimply too busy trying to keep up with the erosion in their standard of living to go off chasing after what somebody else insists is "a higher purpose".

 Most Americans support the types of reforms I’ve talked about tonight,

Just once, cite a study, please.  A Gallup Poll.  Anything.

but I understand the disagreements held by many of you at home.

Were that true, would there not have been some substantiation for the assertions, some reasonably verifiable evidence, rather than endless use of “often”, “many”, “American”, ad nausea?

Millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens.

Is anybody in the country not aware that this is true on only one side of his parentage [at most]?

 So we don’t like the notion anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship.

Shifting gears from “myself” to the editorial “we” might be better transitioned.  And if this is about people illegally here getting a temporary reprieve from deportation, why presume it has to do with “a free pass to American citizenship”?  If it isn’t there, and it is made abundantly clear that it isn’t there, why bring it up?

I know some worry immigration

Continuing the euphemisms; control the language.  Himmler would be so impressed.

will change the very fabric of who we are,

At a minimum, a possibility, and not necessarily one for the betterment of this society.

 or take our jobs,

While employment opportunities are not subject to some natural law limit, at any given moment there are only so many to go around.  Supply and demand; more people looking for a job when there are only so many available, somebody will be out of work.

 or stick it to middle-class families at a time they already feel they’ve gotten a raw deal

It isn’t the “fat-cat” or the poor who get “stuck”: the fat-cats find relief, one way or another, and the poor have no means; the burden will always fall on “the middle class”.

 for over a decade. I hear those concerns, but that’s not what these steps would do.

“Gruber”.

Our history and the facts show that immigrants

This may actually not be another use of a euphemism; it might well be a fact.  The problem is in the differentiation between immigrants and people who have invaded/migrated.  Control the language, ….

 are a net plus for our economy and our society.

Possibly a fact.  An irrelevant fact, but convenient to maintain confusion.

And I believe it’s important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other’s character.

Is that why the term “common sense” has been used, repeatedly?  This is classic; accuse the other guy of your transgressions.  Himmler would now be in awe.

Because for all the back and forth in Washington, we have to remember that this debate is about something bigger.

Just might be true.  But does the guy reading the teleprompter have in mind the same thing most other folk might have in mind (like a Constitutional crisis)?

 It’s about who we are as a country and who we want to be for future generations.

We’ll buy that.  But again, are we all on the same page regarding what we are and want to be?

Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law?

Uhhh, we’ve been over this ground, repeatedly.  Oh that’s right: tell ‘em….

 Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?

As immediately precedes.

Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms,

Now he’s a high school drama queen?  Nothing wrong with a little exaggeration once in a while, but we do not recall this ever having entered the discussion in the last decade or more.

 or are we a nation that values families and works together to keep them together?

Excuse us, but families being broken apart here are being broken apart by the participants, not the system let alone those only paying for the system.  But we’ve been over this ground before, also.

 Are we a nation that educates the world’s best and brightest in our universities only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us,

Puh-lease!  This is only tangentially related.  And so small a subset as to warrant little more than a footnote.  But it does promote the veil.

 or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs here, create businesses here, create industries right here in America?

Still a tangential question: still a part of obfuscation, muddying the waters.  Not conducive to clear thinking.

 That’s what this debate is all about.

A third bald-faced….

We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration.

True.  But as noted throughout, this isn’t about immigration in the first place.  Must be another attempt to sprinkle.

We need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate

First two yes, but compassionate?  Soft-soap.  Hogwash.  Counterproductive.  Flies in the face of “reasoned, thoughtful”; it is a pretense of justification of emotionalism.

 debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.

Leaving the emotion aside removes any need for concern about whether the focus is “hopes” or “fears”.

I know the politics of this issue are tough,

Are they?  Each actor keepingt to their own purview might make things a bit easier.

 but let me tell you why I have come to feel so strongly about it.

Could anybody stop you, short of violence?  [No, we are not advocating violence.]

 Over the past years I’ve seen the determination of immigrant

Euphemism, or intentional obfuscation?

 fathers

parents?

who worked two or three jobs without taking a dime from the government, and at risk any moment of losing it all just to build a better life for their kids.

Touching as it sounds, the long-haul trucker, the steelworker, and any number of others, are in that same boat.  Only the compartment they’re in doesn’t have extra holes in it that they knowingly put in, like the person illegally here has.

 I’ve seen the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them just because they didn’t have the right papers.

If these kids are aware enough to have such an anxiety, then they are aware enough to have their value-systems significantly impacted by the hypocrisy of the parent.  If the concern is for the child, perhaps this is as important or more.

 I’ve seen the courage of students who except for the circumstances of their birth are as American as Malia or Sasha,

And except for the circumstances of their birth, they’d be his kids.  More hogwash.

 students who bravely come out as undocumented in hopes they could make a difference in the country they love.

Maybe.  Actually a good argument for the old standard, adjudication on individual circumstance.

These people, our neighbors, our classmates, our friends,

One must wonder a little about the standards used for “friendship”.  Like on FaceBook?

 they did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life.

Another unsupported assertion.  Having looked at this mess for about 40 years, we feel very comfortable in the position we’ve taken, that such comments may apply to some but not all.

 They came

Illegally, to a society that values the concept and is in fact built on the concept of the rule of law

to work,

Illegally

and study

at whose expense?

and serve in our military.

Illegally?  We know that the US military has historically been from 5% to 50% foreign born non-citizens.  That one is a non-starter.

And, above all, contribute to American success.

Must be that crystal ball again, to which all must defer.  And just as one must never let a crisis go to waste, one must never miss an opportunity to ring the bells of unity and patriotism in conjunction with the advocated position.

Now tomorrow I’ll travel to Las Vegas and meet with some of these students, including a young woman named Astrid Silva.

That’s nice.

Astrid was brought to America

Bolivia, maybe?  This has gone beyond getting old.

when she was 4 years old.

Can you say “child abuse” and/or "child endangerment"?

Her only possessions were a cross, her doll, and the frilly dress she had on. When she started school, she didn’t speak any English.

Surely this have some bearing on something, but the anecdotal evidence is always more anecdotal than evidence.

She caught up to other kids by reading newspapers and watching PBS.

It would appear that some adult was then taking care of the young lady, even to assuring the availability of newspapers and the opportunity to watch PBS.

And then she became a good student.

Your point?

Her father

His “immigration” status?

worked in landscaping. Her mom

Her “immigration” status?

cleaned other people’s homes.

Honest work, for both parents [wonder if they were paying taxes].  A lot of families today cannot get by without two incomes.

They wouldn’t let Astrid apply to a technology magnet school, not because they didn’t love her, but because they were afraid the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant.

Back to the euphemisms.  And who put her behind this eight-ball?

So she applied behind their back and got in.

A fine demonstration of and explanation of good character building.

Still, she mostly lived in the shadows until her grandmother, who visited every year

Legally?

from Mexico, passed away,

Our condolences.

and she couldn’t travel to the funeral without risk of being found out and deported.

About that eight-ball?

 It was around that time she decided to begin advocating for herself and others like her.

Laudable, in isolation, significantly more so had she taken full responsibility to “get right with the law” and advocated from her home country, which would surely have been noted had it been done.  That it was not mentioned offers more perspective on the story.

And today Astrid Silva is a college student working on her third degree.

We cannot help but wonder, at whose expense?

Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid?

Again a sloppy use of the term “immigrant”, leaving only two more confusion.  It cannot be but intentional.  As for Astrid, we suggest that her situation is, if evidence of anything, evidence of that each situation would be best adjudicated on its own merit.

Or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?

Adjudicated on its own merit, we are not greatly concerned that justice would not be served.

Scripture

has no bearing here: it is only another stretch for some “authority”, seeking credibility where little exists.

tells us, we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger. We were strangers once, too.

It is our understanding that this is taken substantially out of context.  So even while scripture does not belong here in all, as we see things, if it is to be used we believe it must be in context.  To prevent it otherwise is to intentionally mislead.  Of course that could never happen in this administration.

My fellow Americans,

Rain that patriotic bell!

 we are and always will be a nation of immigrants.

Perspective, please.  It is our understanding that some 75% or more of the population of this country was in fact born in this country.  That suggests a strong tolerance and acceptance of immigration, but hardly that we are in fact a nation of immigrants.  An oft repeated myth.

  We were strangers once, too.

For some 75% of the population, this is simply not true.

And whether our forbearers were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific or the Rio Grande,

We are tempted to lament the fate of indigenous peoples, but we recognize that indigenous peoples came from somewhere else, too.

we are here only because this country welcomed them in

Not necessarily so.  We suggest that it is at least as likely that however our forbearers got here, and whenever that may have occurred, they may well have stayed as much because they were not fought off as because they were welcomed.

 and taught them that to be an American

Ring that bell again!

 is about something more than what we look like or what our last names are, or how we worship.

About that character being talked so well to Astrid and so many like her.

What makes us Americans

Ring it again, man.

 is our shared commitment to an ideal, that all of us are created equal

Would that include an equal responsibility to the rule of law?

, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.

Another high sounding noise that is a misleading half-truth: there is no provision for natural talent or lack thereof, or any other contributing factor.

  That’s the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us.

More-or-less…on the presumption that we allow for other contributing factors and our perennial favorite, perspective.

 That’s the tradition we must uphold.

The crystal ball has spoken again.  We readily concur that it is a tradition that we are charged with and that serves the world well.  We believe that the honorable thing to do.  But “must”?

That’s the legacy we must

Generally a poor word-choice, “must” belongs, in our opinion, to a group of words that might best be used most sparingly, like “should”, “always”, and “never”.

leave for those who are yet to come.

Was it Jefferson who said something along the lines of the end of freedom been only a generation away, that it had to be fought for by each succeeding generation if it was to continue?

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless this country we love.

We wish we could but find ourselves unable to believe even this last line.  By the way, that final sentence might better read “and may god continue to bless this country we love”.

 
 

Roughly 2200 words, as delivered; with annotations, a total of about 8K.  Small wonder we were furious as we heard it.


Somebody tell this guy he needs better speech-writers.

 
 

+≠&

Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is out of our own pockets and should arguably
be going to other things, from the few items sometimes in our store, and whatever
donations might be put in the tip jar on our Comment/Support page.


To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider contributing to our delinquency.