Native American PWNS immigration protest

[Benvolio]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

[Rolyo85]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

And that's a problem for you?

[xbuzzerx]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

This is a specious argument.

[Rolyo85]

No, let's assume, for the sake of Benvolio's mental health, that it's correct. Everyone non-white has been brutally discriminated against for centuries in Western society. So, if - as Benvolio claims - total inclusion is impossible, and it's either white or non-white, I'd say it's still only fair to switch it around for a while to compensate, no?

[TX-Beau]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

No it's not really up for debate. You will see what you want to see - to justify your racism. Not up for debate at all.

[bankside]

Again, some white guy getting racist perks in 1868 does sweet fuck all for me. Even if you could demonstrate that was my direct ancestor, the intervening time and chance have, at least in my family, clearly deprived me of my "inheritance" of "white privilege." And I'm not going to give up the same chance at a job or the same chance for advancement on account of my skin colour because some dead people were unfair to other dead people. It's not the right approach.

Opposition to affirmative discrimination has nothing to do with social Darwinism or the idea that the social hierarchy of centuries past was correct or dignified or justified. Of course it wasn't. But you'd have to believe in social Darwinism to suggest that minority candidates need to have white people blocked and excluded before they have a chance of competing. I don't see how it isn't as offensive to ethnic minorities as it is to white men.

[xbuzzerx]

Again, some white guy getting racist perks in 1868 does sweet fuck all for me. Even if you could demonstrate that was my direct ancestor, the intervening time and chance have, at least in my family, clearly deprived me of my "inheritance" of "white privilege." And I'm not going to give up the same chance at a job or the same chance for advancement on account of my skin colour because some dead people were unfair to other dead people. It's not the right approach.

Opposition to affirmative discrimination has nothing to do with social Darwinism or the idea that the social hierarchy of centuries past was correct or dignified or justified. Of course it wasn't. But you'd have to believe in social Darwinism to suggest that minority candidates need to have white people blocked and excluded before they have a chance of competing. I don't see how it isn't as offensive to ethnic minorities as it is to white men.

This is a zero sum mindset presuming everyone today is on an equal footing with equal resources, equal education or equal access to opportunity which is premature. This isn't a new argument, it's probably the classic argument against any kind of system, including scholarships, to try to help redress the imbalances in income, opportunity and education for historically disadvantaged groups.

[TX-Beau]

And affirmative action in the States SOLELY applies to people wanting the public dime. Everyone else can hire as many neo-nazis they want.

[bankside]

This is a zero sum mindset presuming everyone today is on an equal footing with equal resources, equal education or equal access to opportunity which is premature. This isn't a new argument, it's probably the classic argument against any kind of system, including scholarships, to try to help redress the imbalances in income, opportunity and education for historically disadvantaged groups.

Funny you should mention zero sum...The zero sum thinking comes from assuming that minority individuals can only succeed when majority individuals are pushed aside. There are lots of useful strategies for making the workplace equitable. No-harassment policies, advertising and recruiting in non traditional media, even a positive declaration of being an equal opportunity employer. All of those approaches ensure minority candidates know they're not wasting their time to apply, while preserving the fairness of the competition itself. The best man or woman of any ethnicity will get the job. Positive sum all around.

[xbuzzerx]

Funny you should mention zero sum...The zero sum thinking comes from assuming that minority individuals can only succeed when majority individuals are pushed aside. There are lots of useful strategies for making the workplace equitable. No-harassment policies, advertising and recruiting in non traditional media, even a positive declaration of being an equal opportunity employer. All of those approaches ensure minority candidates know they're not wasting their time to apply, while preserving the fairness of the competition itself. The best man or woman of any ethnicity will get the job. Positive sum all around.

Bankside, your whole position was a more eloquent version of "I wasn't a slaveowner; you weren't a slave."

Yes, the historical differences in advantage and opportunity have shaped where groups are today, including their socioeconomic status, their parents' level of education, even what neighborhood they live in and what jobs their family held.

Affirmative action programs do have problems, that's true. However pointing this out, and pointing out that today that white and nonwhite people, or males and females, are on completely equal footing isn't... born out by anything really. Any yardstick you want to use really. So I don't really agree with your position, either that these systems are unfair OR that they are pushing out qualified white people.

[Kulindahr]

The entire history of human existence on planet Earth has consisted of people taking over lands that were already inhabited by others. But there's a big difference between invasions that took place in ancient times when the national boundaries that we know of today did not exist, and illegally entering an established country like the USA and expecting to be granted amnesty instead of entering legally and waiting in line. When the first Europeans arrived here hundreds of years ago, there was no actual country. There were simply various native tribes scattered about in what now constitutes the continental USA. So, saying that the USA was "founded on illegal immigration" is a foolish claim when speaking in favor the USA's current illegal immigration issue.

What's the point of having immigration laws in place that are intended to curtail the flow of immigrants into the USA if the government's gonna grant amnesty to the illegals just because they're already here?

Wonderful example of cultural imperialism!

[Kulindahr]

I am virtually the only one here who ever expresses concern for the poor, or who has a practical plan to help them. Can you point to a single post in which you expressed concern for poor Americans?

I nominate this post for "Lie of the Year" award. I can't think of anything that could top it in the next ten months, so can we just go ahead and make the award?

[Kulindahr]

Yes there is some evidence that some Vikings or Scandinavians arrived in the far northwestern parts of Canada/U.S. earlier than people thought they did, but still thousands upon thousands of years AFTER the Natives. Sorry.

The Chinese got here before the colonial European influx, in fact twice, once around 600 and again around 1400. In the first instance, they married into the native population, setting an example few who followed them would follow.

[Kulindahr]

Well, rareboy, your objection is not well taken. Scroll through this or any other thread and try to find a liberal post which does not contain an personal insult against the Conservative members. No big deal. I don't respect them enough to care about their insults.

What "Conservative members"?

[Nemothepanda]

The question is, why should white males be EXCLUDED from all those jobs, while a preference is given to others, including recent immigrants? Is that not a racist policy? Why is it racist to object to a racist law? How can that be consistent with the Constitutional requirement of equalrotection of the law.

What exclusion? People get excluded from jobs all the time, usually because they're not up to standards or aren't what an owner is looking for. Immigrants for example tend to work more for less regardless of their education, which is something that most business owners want, rather than the native-born that wants better pay and benefits upfront. This is capitalism at work here, and it's not the immigrant's fault if you didn't get the job.

[Nemothepanda]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

Yeah, because that's what is needed. If these laws and statutes weren't in place, we'd be around 1943 in terms on how businesses treat minorities...horribly, mind you. I for one find it deliciously ironic that you're complaining about majority exclusion on a gay porn site. You do realize that sexual orientation isn't a protected category, and that homosexuals can be denied jobs and service in 50% of America by simply being gay correct? Assuming that you're gay yourself, all this ranting is hurting our own cause to become accepted members of society because we ourselves are a MINORITY that can BENEFIT from laws such as these. Get that in your skull.

[rareboy]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

DUH.

You do not exclude white men to the maximum extent possible.

One does not equal the other unless you believe that there are only an absolutely finite number of spots to fill. Which there actually aren't.

And that is not open to debate.

As well, white men do not deserve by right of skin colour or their sex to come before all others in any endeavour.

That also is not open to debate.

[Benvolio]

White males do not deserve to behind others as the statute requires. The maximum extent possible for women and minorities is 100 percent. That is the purpose and effect. It is only when the supply of qualified women and minorities is exhausted that it it legal to hire a white man.

That also is not open to debate.

[rareboy]

Nowhere does it say that it is illegal to hire a white man.

Dodd Frank is just a toothless admonition to the financial industry that there should be more racial and gender diversity in the agencies. In large part, this was introduced after a few companies loaded with white guys managed to break the world economy through testosterone driven, reckless bets on the futures of hundreds of millions of people around the world. In the same way that the white men in Iceland literally bankrupted their country by being oblivious to anything other than their own big swinging dicks when it came to financial speculation. In the case of Iceland, they just threw all the white guys out of power and replaced them with a group of women who are re-building the entire state and economy from scratch.
That is far more drastic than telling agencies and the contract service providers that something needs to change in the management of financial regulation and management in the US.

The intent is that if there are two equally qualified candidates who have applied to fill a position, the agencies overseeing the financial industries and the organizations benefiting from association with them will hire women and minorities in order to provide a much needed perspective from significant portions of the population who currently are gravely under-represented...it is not illegal to hire white males. You see, BV, it may come as a shock to you, but for decades now, the opposite has happened. Regualtory agencies and financial companies run by white males have tended to only hire white males for most positions unless they want someone to type a letter or clean a toilet.

There is no court mandated penalty for hiring white males. A company doing business with the agencies will not be thrown in jail for hiring a white male. There is no prison sentence in Dodd Frank for agencies hiring white males or the companies that they do business with hiring white males. A company looking for a contract with the agencies may be evaluated for diversity of its workforce in being selected to do business with federal agencies, but if any large financial company in the US today is still 90% white males...then there really is a serious underlying issue, isn't there?

You do agree, don't you, that the make-up of the federal agencies should reflect the population distribution of sexes and should reflect the racial distribution of the country. Don't you?

You would agree that it currently does not, wouldn't you?

I'm so sorry that all of this hurts the feelings of all the guys in white sheets....but face it. You have to learn to share.

[TX-Beau]

White males do not deserve to behind others as the statute requires. The maximum extent possible for women and minorities is 100 percent. That is the purpose and effect. It is only when the supply of qualified women and minorities is exhausted that it it legal to hire a white man.

That also is not open to debate.

Good Morning!

I'm really really curious which statute requires white men to behind others? is there a sign up sheet?

In the US - if you want to do business with the Fed (and is some places the State) you can be required to have a diversified work force. Because you are asking for tax dollars and the Gov is not allowed to participate in discrimination.

But if you are Ben, you ALWAYS have the option to apply at any private employer - or start your own white men only business. Come on Ben, you are so very superior, gather up all those shat upon white penises and show us what real employment looks like.

Seriously - if you are paranoid Negroes are here for your jobs and Jose is fucking your women, and Francis won't have your babies - you need some kind of medication.

[rareboy]

Good Morning!

I'm really really curious which statute requires white men to behind others? is there a sign up sheet?

I would further note that the wording says to 'the maximum extent possible' without quotas and, in quite specifically in fact, without direction to the agencies to put white men at the back of the line. This is just Benvolio's delusional interpretation.

Since his objection is admittedly based on racism...and not on ensuring that women and minorities of equal or greater ability get hired instead of only white males...his fundamental argument has no merits.

We are only replaying the equal opportunities argument in a country founded on slavery over and over again. For the white males who lost this battle, and the battle to keep women from becoming full and equal citizens and voters and who lost the battle of segregation...this is just the latest cross to burn on the lawn.

[TX-Beau]

See, I was kinda making a joke about Ben's preposition in search of a verb.... taken at face value one is forced to think he's inventing the verb "to behind" which is all sorts of fun on a gay porn 'site.

But I do agree with you, and though post 178 was pretty kick ass.

[rareboy]

See, I was kinda making a joke about Ben's preposition in search of a verb.... taken at face value one is forced to think he's inventing the verb "to behind" which is all sorts of fun on a gay porn 'site.

But I do agree with you, and though post 178 was pretty kick ass.

lol.

I don't think that there's much question that women and minorities have been getting bent over and fucked royally in the ass by hiring practises that have favoured white males for the last hundred and fifty years.

Now for others of us....it has been great fun getting fucked by white males over the years.

[Rolyo85]

I do enjoy some white dick myself. And behinding white guys is the best!


Btw I figured out what Benvolio's fears are based on. See, he thinks "to the maximum extent possible" means "hire ONLY blacks and women". In his paranoid vision, for every job he applies for, there will be two spots open, and three black guys lining up for them, with two chicks and a brown boy trailing behind, and the despotic evilness of the law will be merit-blind but will only look for race and gender.

Unlike before, when it was ONLY merit-blind when it came to people of color and women...

[xbuzzerx]

White males do not deserve to behind others as the statute requires. The maximum extent possible for women and minorities is 100 percent. That is the purpose and effect. It is only when the supply of qualified women and minorities is exhausted that it it legal to hire a white man.

That also is not open to debate.

lol.

I don't think that there's much question that women and minorities have been getting bent over and fucked royally in the ass by hiring practises that have favoured white males for the last hundred and fifty years.

Now for others of us....it has been great fun getting fucked by white males over the years.

I have already said in this thread at least one time to Benvolio that even if we completely accept that his assertion about the correct, "not open to debate" interpretation of this policy is that white men should be excluded to the maximum effect possible in favor of any applicants who are minorities, he still has not shown that white men are earning less money, less employed in good positions or shut out of good jobs compared to any of these groups.

So even if we presume this policy does what he says it does, which it does not, then, as I already said, this is like crying murder without a corpse, and crying rape without a victim. He can't demonstrate white men have been harmed at all other than in some "well OBVIOUSLY!!" hand-on-hip armchair discussion sort of way.

White males continue to command the highest salaries and dominate the highest positions and the most lucrative fields, and to be more represented in professional jobs than all of these other groups, and to earn more income and successfully be promoted to more managerial or leadership positions than these other groups even compared to minorities who hold the same jobs with the same titles or qualifications. Even white women still to this day do not earn equal pay for exactly the same jobs as white men in large part.

The concept that this policy is to 'exclude' white men, or has done so, is absolutely ridiculous when even if this policy were discriminatory in that manner it has still failed even to create equality let alone an unfair advantage to non-white males.

[Benvolio]

And here, I thought gays were so concerned with equal rights. This thread disproves that notion.

[TX-Beau]

...Dodge to the left...

[Rolyo85]

And here, I thought gays were so concerned with equal rights. This thread disproves that notion.

You haven't responded to my question - what's wrong with whites being discriminated for a while? It's only fair. That's if we use YOUR assumption that it's and either/or situation. Or are you gonna be honest and say directly that you'd prefer preferential treatment of whites?

[rareboy]

And here, I thought gays were so concerned with equal rights. This thread disproves that notion.

It doesn't. It has everything to do with making sure that everyone....not just white males have equal rights. If there is an equal rights issue here...I have no doubt that the courts would be working it through. To encourage hiring minorities and women to the greatest extent possible without any punitive action otherwise is hardly a human rights issue as I see it from here. It is more like moral suasion.

As noted...what you want is exclusionary rights. You want the advantage to go to white males over women and minorities. You've been clear that not to do so "will kill the Goose that lays the Golden Egg" I believe. So it is very clear. You do not believe in equal rights.

You've lost this one and you've got nothing but pouting and more red herrings and nonsense to cover over the fact that your objection to immigration (the subject of this thread by the way) is naked racism.

But keep spinning there. While it seems to take you some time to come back with replies...they are always hilarious when you do.

[bankside]

Ill answer it. Rolyo, I cannot believe anyone would be taken seriously to suggest that white men of today should be made to endure unfair hiring practices to settle some historic score. How ludicrous. And I'll repeat: how ludicrous to take white men interested in equality and teach them that the old boys club as the only way they're ever goin I get a job. It is a dumb -the dumbest- shot-sighted strategy imaginable that anti-racists could adopt.

Next question, Rareboywhere are you getting that definition of affirmative action? When I've heard the explanation from HR people or academics, they've explained that a minority candidate is picked not when they are equal (diversity becomes the tiebreaker) but when they are minimally qualified, even if a majority candidate is better (diversity becomes the trump card.)

[opinterph]

… the Dodd Frank Wall street "refrom" act requires agencies, financial organizations and contractors to avoid hiring white men to the "maximum extent possible" by hiring women and minorities to maximum extent possible.

False.

… legal immigrants … are allowed to work and come within the definition of minority … and are protected against employment discrimination

True.

… legal immigrants … are legally entitled to a preference under Dodd Frank's "maximum extent possible" requirement, over white males.

False.

[The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Of 2010] requires the exclusion of white males.

False.

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH …

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Of 2010

The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.

If we read the Act while implementing standards and procedures associated with generally accepted principles of the English language [to the maximum extent possible]:

The thing that is to be ensured = fair inclusion and utilization.

And I submit that if we were determined to develop a logically appropriate antithetical statement to the above affirmation, it would be:

The thing that is to be avoided = unfair exclusion and neglect.

[opinterph]

[Employees’] efforts are worth as much as the money parted with when the owner of a business pays their salary. It is absolutely an exchange of equals.

How does a business generate profit, if its employees receive a value that is equal to their contribution?

[xbuzzerx]

Ill answer it. Rolyo, I cannot believe anyone would be taken seriously to suggest that white men of today should be made to endure unfair hiring practices to settle some historic score.

Here's the problem bankside. You are the one claiming these systems are just there to tit-for-tat some event that happened in the distant past. If you paid attention to the last page or so of the thread we were talking about how still, to this day, there is not equality in the workforce. These policies are not to "punish" white people for something done 200 years ago but rather to redress the bias present in the workforce which generally prefers white over nonwhite and male over female in situation normal.

You are viewing these policies as an apology or reparation for some act in the distant past when they are there to help correct an imbalance which still continues into the present day.

[rareboy]

What Buzzer wrote.

It isn't about reparations for past injustices; it is a response to the very real and imbalanced situation in hiring practises in the US.

And what Opinterph wrote.

You know benvolio. There is almost nothing quite as offensive and annoying as someone who either does not know how to read or is wilfully misreading something telling people who do know how to read that they don't know how to read.

In this case we all understand that this misrepresentation is so essential as a whitewash over your real anger and disgust about brown people that your continued attempts to paint yourself as a victim only make you appear like a pathetic anachronism.

So please stop insulting our intelligence.

[Benvolio]

How does a business generate profit, if its employees receive a value that is equal to their contribution?

Because the most important contributions come from the employer, who starts the business, with a idea, manages it, hires the employees and promises the wages, pays all the insurance, taxes and burdens which the liberals have imposed and bears the entire risk.

[rareboy]

Oh Jesus. Having been soundly defeated on your central thesis about immigrants and Dodd Frank...now we're going to try to derail the thread with another rant about taxes?



This thread was about immigration.

If you want to start a separate thread about the bone you have to pick about entrpreneurs not being able to pay their workers a dollar a day with no benefits in a tax free haven...start one.

[Benvolio]

False.



True.



False.



False.





If we read the Act while implementing standards and procedures associated with generally accepted principles of the English language [to the maximum extent possible]:

The thing that is to be ensured = fair inclusion and utilization.

And I submit that if we were determined to develop a logically appropriate antithetical statement to the above affirmation, it would be:

The thing that is to be avoided = unfair exclusion and neglect.

I cannot agree openterp. Affirmative action is inherently unfair. Unfair to the employer prevented from hiring the best available person, and unfair to the people pushed aside on the basis of irrelevant factors, i.e. race, color, national origin etc. Nor is the hiring of recent immigrants over existing citizens, fair. But many believe that AA is fair, ostensibly, as redressing past wrong or something. If that is fair, then the maximum fairness the maximum inclusion of women and minorities, and the maximum exclusion of white males.

[Benvolio]

Oh Jesus. Having been soundly defeated on your central thesis about immigrants and Dodd Frank...now we're going to try to derail the thread with another rant about taxes?



This thread was about immigration.

If you want to start a separate thread about the bone you have to pick about entrpreneurs not being able to pay their workers a dollar a day with no benefits in a tax free haven...start one.

If this is addressed to me, please notice that I was answering the question of a moderator, and did so in a single sentence. Accusing me of derailing was a falsehood.

[xbuzzerx]

I cannot agree openterp. Affirmative action is inherently unfair.

This is an opinion statement from which we've spent the better part of 4 pages asking you to either show in proof or in measurements of socioeconomic status or access to education or good employment has actually 'hurt' anyone. It seems more than reasonable that since you would be completely unable to show that white males have fallen behind historically disadvantaged demographics in any pertinent area a label of "unfair" is not accurate, and that, if anything, only unfair advantages have diminished.

[Benvolio]

Your opinion of what constitutes proof of fairness is unreasonable.b We have some 14 to 24 million unemployed or underemployed with the government bringing in millions more each year. Any exclusion of the best qualified on the basis of irrelevant, or worse, partisan, considerations, is unfair without more.

[xbuzzerx]

Your opinion of what constitutes proof of fairness is unreasonable.b We have some 14 to 24 million unemployed or underemployed with the government bringing in millions more each year. Any exclusion of the best qualified on the basis of irrelevant, or worse, partisan, considerations, is unfair without more.

Your statement implies that a large number or all unemployed people in the U.S. had jobs which could be filled by a just-arrived immigrant who may or may not even speak English.

Another enormously dubious claim. Booting out immigrants is not going to bring back a subprime lending job or real estate investment banker job or middle management job that evaporated sometime over the last 10 years with the economic downturn.

[Rolyo85]

Wait, I just found out that the GOVERNMENT is bringing in millions of immigrants. Was I just a sucker for buying my own ticket when there was a government-sent boat waiting to take me to the States? O.o


Benvolio, will you answer my question?

[Benvolio]

Wait, I just found out that the GOVERNMENT is bringing in millions of immigrants. Was I just a sucker for buying my own ticket when there was a government-sent boat waiting to take me to the States? O.o


Benvolio, will you answer my question?

When you combine an insult with a question, you should not expect an answer.

[xbuzzerx]

When you combine an insult with a question, you should not expect an answer.

But you don't answer questions without insults either, so what does it matter?

[Rolyo85]

When you combine an insult with a question, you should not expect an answer.

Actually, I never expect answers from you and you don't have the capacity to surprise me. And for the record, there were no insults in the posts with my questions.

And if you're just ignoring posters based on their dislike of you, why bother posting topics where you know they're the only ones who will respond?

[Benvolio]

Another insulting question= no answer.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

So Benvolio....you claim that Obama has allowed more immigrants in America than any other president, right?

Polifact says just the opposite: According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.

We wondered whether there might have been a surge of undocumented immigrants that explained the increase, but there wasn’t. During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million. And illegal immigration actually peaked late in Bush’s second term, at which point the recession hit and the numbers declined under Obama. Such patterns do not explain the 57 percent bump in monthly deportations that we found under Obama

Here's the complete article, which replies to an ad that claimed that Obama deported more immigrants than any other president:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-any-other-pr/

Of course, i'm sure someone is going to move the goalposts and claim that he shipped them in all at once on Election Day and hid them in the White House or some other lame cop-out.

[Benvolio]

Its a hoax. The House Judiciary Committee points out that BO is simply changing the definition of "deport", to include stopping at the boarder, and other word games.http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...tation-numbers

[Benvolio]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

[Text: Removed] I admit that it does annoy me that I must pay taxes to give social programs to people that hate Americans.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Its a hoax. The House Judiciary Committee points out that BO is simply changing the definition of "deport", to include stopping at the boarder, and other word games.http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...tation-numbers

OMG, I'M PSYCHIC! Someone moved the goalposts! And with a citation from a radical right-wing opinion site affiliated with The John Birch Society! You didn't need precognition to see that one coming!