Beware misleading headlines, folks...
Beware unethical reporters and news organizations and
their private agendas...
(*PAUSE*)
Which brings us to an AP article written by Andrew Taylor
that... as you'll see... serves as a prime example of the type of
"journalism" we must constantly be on guard against.
* * *
* * *
Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration -
and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush
extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major
overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
* WHAT SORT OF "AMNESTY?" AND WHAT WAS
CONGRESS' REACTION?
Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if
and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect
millions of immigrants from deportation.
* MEANING CONGRESS WAS FINE WITH THE ACTIONS... VIEWED
THEM AS IN KEEPING WITH BROAD - AND CLEAR - CONGRESSIONAL INTENT?
(*SMIRK*)
* "SOMETHING" TELLS ME I'M ON TO SOMETHING...
(*CHUCKLE*)
Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of
a sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul...
* IN THE WAKE OF... (AND I'M GUESSING... IN LINE WITH THE
GOAL AND PURPOSE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE SWEEPING BIPARTISAN IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL...)
(*SMIRK*) (*SNICKER*)
...and at a time when "amnesty" was not a dirty
word.
* BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD PASSED AN AMNESTY! BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT HAD SIGNED THE AMNESTY BILL!
* FOLKS... I LIVED THROUGH IT! I WAS THERE! THE AP IS
CLEARLY COUNTING ON THE PROBABILITY THAT MANY READING THIS DON'T HAVE THE HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND TO KNOW THAT THIS PIECE ISN'T BY ANY STRETCH OF SINCERE PLAUSIBILITY
AN "APPLES TO APPLES" COMPARE AND CONTRAST STORY.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD AT THE SHEER DISHONESTY OF IT*)
Their actions were less controversial because there was a
consensus in Washington that the 1986 law needed a few fixes and Congress was
poised to act on them.
* YEAH... (BUT HOW MANY PARAGRAPHS DOWN DOES THE AUTHOR
NOTE THIS?!)
(*SNORT*)
Obama is acting as the country - and Washington - are
bitterly divided over a broken immigration system and what to do about 11
million people living in the U.S. illegally.
* FORGET ALL SET DRESSING FOLKS... THE POINT IS THAT
OBAMA IS CLEARLY GOING AGAINST THE WILL OF CONGRESS - REAGAN AND BUSH WEREN'T!
REAGAN AND BUSH'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS WERE GOING "WITH" THE GRAIN OF THE
LAW AND "WITH" CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL INTENT!
Obama wants to extend protection from deportation to
millions of immigrant parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent
residents, and expand his 2-year-old program that shields immigrants brought
illegally to this country as children.
* SOMETHING CLEARLY CONGRESS REFUSED TO DO!
A tea party-influenced GOP is poised to erupt, if and
when Obama follows through on his promise.
* I WOULD PRAY SO!
* BUT, FOLKS... THIS ISN'T PARTISAN! (AT LEAST IT
SHOULDN'T BE!) THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE JUST AS INTERESTED AS TEA PARTY
REPUBLICANS IN PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION - NOT TO MENTION THEIR INSTITUTIONAL
POWERS IF YOU WANNA THROW IN SELF-INTEREST!
"The audacity of this president to think he can
completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to
me," said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an outspoken opponent of relaxing
U.S. immigration law. "It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it
violates the will of the American people."
* FROM EVERY POLL I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS TRUE... BUT...
EVEN "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" IS BESIDE THE POINT! OBAMA IS PLANNING
ON TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION! THE DEMOCRATS (AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA) SEEM
POISED TO PROVIDE COVER FOR HIM!
Here's a timeline of then and now:
-1986. Congress and Reagan...
* CONGRESS AND REAGAN... (HOW DID THE AP WRITER PUT IT UP
ABOVE... "A BIPARTISAN CONGRESS" AT THAT!)
...enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to
up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they
had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that
test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up
families.
-1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to
cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service
commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the
law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in
which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject
to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.
* AND THIS "ANNOUNCEMENT" WAS APPLAUDED IN
BIPARTISAN FASHION! REAGAN DIDN'T DO THIS IN OPPOSITION TO CONGRESS - HE DID
THIS AS A BRIDGE TO ALLOW THE CONGRESS WHICH HAD JUST LEGISLATED AMNESTY TO
WORK OUT THE BUGS! (THOSE "EARLY EFFORTS TO AMEND THE LAW TO COVER FAMILY
MEMBERS FAILED" NOT... REPEAT, NOT... BECAUSE CONGRESS WAS OPPOSED TO LETTING
THE MINOR CHILDREN OF AMNESTIED PARENTS STAY, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE FIGHTING
OVER WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE CHILDREN OF ONE PARENT WHO HAD BEEN AMNESTIED WHILE
THE OTHER HADN'T BEEN! AND REAGAN DIDN'T FORCE THAT! HE DIDN'T ISSUE AN ORDERS
CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF CONGRESS!)
* FOLKS... THIS AP ARTICLE TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW
ABOUT HOW LOW THESE UNETHICAL BASTARDS WILL GO!
-1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted
to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986
law. The House failed to act.
* THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO ACT. THEY'D ALREADY PASSED THE
ORIGINAL AMNESTY! THE SENATE ACTED TO BASICALLY REINFORCE THEIR APPROVAL FOR
REAGAN'S SINCERE READING OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. (THEY DIDN'T PASS A NEW LAW!
THEY "VOTED." IT'S CALLED A RESOLUTION. THE AP REPORTER COULD HAVE
CLARIFIED THIS... BUT CHOSE NOT TO.)
(*SMIRK*)
-1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting
through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family
fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and
who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection
from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration
estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy. Congress in
October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.
* AGAIN... BUSH AND CONGRESS WERE IN SYNC! BUSH WASN'T
GOING AGAINST CONGRESS! BUSH WAS USING HIS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO SMOOTH THE
WAY OF CONGRESSIONALLY LEGISLATED POLICY BEFORE CONGRESS ACTUALLY PASSED THE BROADER
LAW AND EVERYONE WAS FINE WITH HIS ACTIONS! THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH OBAMA'S
THREATENED ACTIONS! JUST THE OPPOSITE IN FACT! (BUT OF COURSE THE AP REPORTER
KNOWS THIS...)
No comments:
Post a Comment