Give Us Your White, Your Anglos, Your Protestants - the Rest, Forgeddaboudit
The occupied White House has disengaged itself thoroughly from any pretense that it is acting on principal. It has now come out against measures that were its own, and that it espoused, until they were taken up by a Congress that it can't control.
The latest, the DREAM act, actually incorporated measures the cabal had promoted in its own immigration reforms.
Previously, in vetoing SCHIP, the cretin in chief denied his own promised health insurance for millions of kids.
Even the WaPo editorial board choked on this latest lie.
Kids don't vote, and neither do illegal immigrants, so the war criminals can play this one against its increasingly alienated racist core. What is gained? Another talking point about Congressional lack of achievement. Add to that, the abysmally racist element is pleased, I guess, but not fooled.
That the highest offices of this land have been used for purely political purposes for the past two terms cannot make even the most cynical GoPervs happy. The public has not been blinded by the lies, and the public is seeing the huge gap between rhetoric and action very clearly.
The latest, the DREAM act, actually incorporated measures the cabal had promoted in its own immigration reforms.
Previously, in vetoing SCHIP, the cretin in chief denied his own promised health insurance for millions of kids.
Even the WaPo editorial board choked on this latest lie.
The Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would have addressed a small but especially deserving fraction of the estimated 12 million people in this country illegally. Those who entered the country before age 16, lived here for at least five years and graduated from high school with unblemished records could obtain conditional legal status for six years. During that period, they would have to spend at least two years in college or the military. Only then would they qualify to become legal permanent residents.
In its policy statement yesterday, the administration asserted that it was "sympathetic" to the plight of these young people but insisted that the measure "falls short" because it would create "a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants -- including young people whose parents respected the nation's immigration laws." Of course, the administration-backed comprehensive immigration reform measure, which failed earlier this year, also provided for special, expedited treatment of young people in this category.[Emphasis added.]
Kids don't vote, and neither do illegal immigrants, so the war criminals can play this one against its increasingly alienated racist core. What is gained? Another talking point about Congressional lack of achievement. Add to that, the abysmally racist element is pleased, I guess, but not fooled.
That the highest offices of this land have been used for purely political purposes for the past two terms cannot make even the most cynical GoPervs happy. The public has not been blinded by the lies, and the public is seeing the huge gap between rhetoric and action very clearly.
Labels: Bush Legacy, Immigration, Racism
posted by Ruth at 7:46 AM
1 Comments:
And just to note the ways in which our political discourse have changed in the last few years, the New York Times, reporting on the Dream bill, says , "A bill to grant legal status to illegal immigrants who are high school graduates was defeated Wednesday in a test vote in the Senate ... By a vote of 52 to 44, the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to proceed to a debate on the Senate floor." Italics mine.
The bill was defeated -- but a majority of the Senate voted for it.
How's that for Newspeak? I can't find anything in the Constitution that says that every single bill has to have 60 votes in order to be passed into law. I thought a simple majority was sufficient for something to -- in the old language -- "pass."
And the New York Times treats this as perfectly ordinary. Yes, these days the Republicans will threaten to filibuster EVERYTHING, and so every single piece of legislation must have a filibuster-proof supermajority in order to be said to pass, but we are describing this in terms of the Democrats' failure to pass the bill and NOT in terms of the Republicans' continued determination to wreck the legislative branch as their leader has wrecked the executive branch.
This is really getting ridiculous.
Post a Comment
<< Home