Susan Boyle, Bill Clinton, and a can: “Dreams”

By Too Conservative

They all make it somehow into this new video on immigration from …..worth a watch.

Are you in favor of Obama’s Friday decision?


  • Elder Berry says:

    Short answer, yes. Given that cowardly, inept and useless Congress can’t legislate its way out of a paper bag on major issues of our time, I think his action was necessary and appropriate.

  • Matthew Osborn says:

    “Are you in favor of Obama’s Friday decision?”


  • NateDogg614 says:

    Eh, to me, it just comes off as pandering to Hispanics for their vote.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Eh, to me, it just comes off as pandering to Hispanics for their vote.”

    You haven’t heard pandering yet. Watch Romney’s speech today.

  • Stevens Miller says:

    Whenever an elected official does anything that is popular within a given community, that official’s opponents always say it was pandering to that community. Says more about those opponents than it does about the official.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    So what does it say in this case, then?

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “You haven’t heard pandering yet. Watch Romney’s speech today.”

    I see. So if Romney (or any Republican) does it, it’s pandering, and if Obama (or any Democrat) does it, it’s not. Rather, he’s “evolved” on the issue, or is holding fast to bypassing Congress.

  • liz says:

    I don’t know your family histories, but my parents parents came here through Ellis Island from Eastern Europe (escaping the pogroms), and aside from having to pass a health screening, they didn’t need to wait for a green card, or a work visa, or a sponsor, or anything. They came, they were cleared, they went over to Brooklyn, and that was that.

    I don’t know who it was who decided that now that THEIR family was here, it was time to slam the door behind them, but I think that we need to eliminate the whole necessity for all the paperwork. A criminal records check is all that should be necessary.

  • mosborn says:

    Wouldn’t referring to that as pandering imply that Obama doesn’t really feel that these kids deserve to not be deported? I don’t know that there’s any evidence to that effect.

  • Pragmatist says:

    Aren’t the USA’s founding fathers the original illegal immigrants? I bet a few American Indian tribes think so…

  • Dulles Voter says:

    that open boarder worked when we were a nation that needed a larger population we don’t any more and thus the added regulation to get into the country. And as a first generation American I can tell you that my family did have to wait. My grandparents did need to have sponsors and my grandfather had to wait for 5 year to gain his citizenship to be able to bring his wife and children to this country. My grandparents endured 18 years of separation during which my grandmother spent 5 years in a soviet gulag before achieving some level of freedom in this country. I think it is why that freedom is so valued by my family and why we are so opposed to your “big government safety nets.”

  • liz says:

    Dulles Voter, my grandparents came over in 1910, before soviet gulags were invented. I’m sorry about your grandmother, but it was anti-communist fear-mongering that started the whole shut the gates phenomenon (and especially keeping out folks from Eastern Europe from the 50’s through the 80’s), not a fear of over-population.

    Now, I’m fortunate that I wasn’t from an Asian background, because they were barred from immigration and citizenship for decades (particularly women). Before that, only free white people from Europe were allowed to immigrate.

    Then, of course, there was a period of not wanting the Irish here.

    Every generation has their excuse for not wanting to let people into this country. If “overpopulation” is yours, then I welcome you to cling to it.

  • liz says:

    Oh, and of course the quota of Jews allowed to immigrate post-WWII, since God forbid we be suddenly overrun by them.

  • Dulles Voter says:

    What do Jews and WW-II have to do with anything to do with current immigration policy? And I would hardly call anti-communist belief’s fear mongering…as I said maternal grandmomther spent 5 years in a soviet gulag. My paternal grandfather was not so lucky and the Soviet’s sent a lovely letter to my grandmother to let her know that her husband died in the gulag (his parents of course got the distinct pleasure of starving to death in the Ukrainian grain famines), so I wouldn’t call it fear mongering to suggest that communism is a really bad idea.

    Now back to current immigration policy. The US accepts more legal immigrants into the country than any other nation in the world. In 2006 according to Wikipedia we accepted more than any other nation in the world combined…that’s hardly clinging to keeping people out.

  • liz says:

    What does keeping Jews out after WWII have to do with current immigration policy? Only that there is always a group we don’t want here.

    Only that there is always a group considered undesirable.

    Only that when we think of our country, we think of open doors – of the Statue of Liberty, of the promise of freedom and opportunity. The green of the Statue, the gold of her torch, the red, white, and blue of the Stars and Stripes don’t go well with current immigration policy.

    Throwing people out because they lack proper documentation is downright unpatriotic.

  • Ellie Lockwood says:

    No. I am not in favor of Ptrsident Obama’s decision on Friday for a really simple reason. I still understand the meaning of the word…illegal.

  • Ed Myers says:

    After all the investment in educating and Americanizing those children, I welcome giving them a chance to create wealth here rather than export all that human capital to some third world country where it will be squandered. Give them green cards but not citizenship. They didn’t break any immigration laws themselves.

  • Ed Myers says:

    By removing the risk of deportation we have freed up human capital. This will be an economic stimulus that requires no debt or taxes. What a deal.

  • Pragmatist says:

    I think immigration makes a certain part of American society uncomfortable because it introduces competition that might force some to work harder than they’d otherwise have to. The future will belong to the educated and I see quite a large portion of the American populace who either don’t possess the requisite gray matter or the drive to improve themselves.

    Our society provides them cover by glorifying sports heroes above scholastic achievement. If you’re “too smart” you’ll be uncool, meanwhile the athlete that can barely compose a sentence is the “role model”.

    People who come here from other countries often do so to take full advantage of obtain education that is available if you’re willing to work at it. They’ll be the ones leading our corporations and important institutions years from now. Meanwhile, those who didn’t choose to compete will be sitting on the couch watching NASCAR bitching about those damn foreigners who took their jobs and their country.

    A free nation is just that…free to the hardest worker, the smartest person in the crowd, the most innovative. Survival of the fittest in the truest sense….

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “I see. So if Romney (or any Republican) does it, it’s pandering, and if Obama (or any Democrat) does it, it’s not. Rather, he’s “evolved” on the issue, or is holding fast to bypassing Congress”.

    No. You don’t understand what pandering is my ideological friend.

    Pandering is saying you’ll do something for effect. Actually doing something isn’t pandering — it’s doing something.

Leave Comment