Obama: Being an American not a matter of blood or birth, but faith

[fossten]

Video

“Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,” President Obama declared at a speech he gave on immigration.
Obama also blamed “resentment” to new immigrants to poor economic conditions.
“Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentment towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval,” Obama said.

In other words, "the hell with the Constitution."

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Traitor. He's actually advocating breaking the law.

From Ed Morrissey:

We know what Obama meant in this passage — a similarity to those who have expressed the notion that they were Americans before ever setting foot in the US, thanks to their love of liberty. However, the people expressing that concept came to the US through legal immigration, and didn’t presume to break our laws in order to express their desire to live in freedom. They understood that the aspirational concept of being American and the legal status of American citizenship (or even residency) are two completely different things.

Besides, if being an American is a matter of faith, then the religion in question is devotion to the rule of law. We have created the laws by which we live through representative democracy within a framework set by our Constitution. Breaking the law to get into the country isn’t an expression of faith; using Obama’s construct, it’s actually heresy.

Obama and his open-borders allies attempt to blur the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Almost no one of consequence opposes the latter. Everyone of the “faith” of Americanism should insist on enforcing the laws against the former. Unfortunately, this President — and many of those who have come before him — have proven rather faithless in this task.

 

[FIND]

Way to take that out of context.:shifty:

 

[shagdrum]

Way to take that out of context.:shifty:

Considering the recent focus on immigration reform and the political pressures he is under, you don't think Obama was saying this to cater illegal immigrants and the pro-amnesty crowd?

 

[FIND]

Considering the recent focus on immigration reform and the political pressures he is under, you don't think Obama was saying this to cater illegal immigrants and the pro-amnesty crowd?

No, I am sure he is saying this for those reasons. I just think Foss's explanation is a little out there.

He is saying those things because he is trying to crack down on illegal immigration and illegal workers, without alienating immigrants and the pro-amnesty crowd. I don't see him saying the constitution is sh1t, and I don't agree with Morrissey's summation of this.

Of course, I really wish Obama would take the next logical step in saying being an American is a matter of faith and pride in this country, and deporting all those idiots who march carrying mexican flags or whatever flags from whatever country of their origin, and he would deport all those people who cannot learn English so that they can communicate with all of us Americans, instead of letting the government continue to offer government services that cater to people who would rather be a mexican living in america or something of that nature.

 

[shagdrum]

You should read all of Morrissey's statement; not just the snipit Fossten posted up. I don't see any indication that he is, "trying to crack down on illegal immigration and illegal workers". this seems like a rhetorical way to blur the lines between legal and illegal, which was Morrissey's point.

 

[FIND]

You should read all of Morrissey's statement; not just the snipit Fossten posted up. I don't see any indication that he is, "trying to crack down on illegal immigration and illegal workers". this seems like a rhetorical way to blur the lines between legal and illegal, which was Morrissey's point.

No, that was separate from that snippet. I am saying, they currently are trying to crack down on it. Though they are also advocating amnesty. I am trying to find the speech I was listening to earlier on the radio to reference for you. This is why the portion of the speech they are focusing in is out of context. I know the reference in the speech is an attempt at strengthening the argument for amnesty, which I am against, but I wouldn't call it a way of blurring the lines between legal and illegal either.

 

[shagdrum]

No, that was separate from that snippet. I am saying, they currently are trying to crack down on it.

Where has this administration actually tried to "crack down" on illegal immigration?

Also, if he is not attempting to blur the lines, what is the purpose of downplaying the legal requirements of citizenship in favor of some vague, unifying notion of faith?

 

[FIND]

Where has this administration actually tried to "crack down" on illegal immigration?

http://www.newser.com/story/63365/obama-targets-employers-in-immigration-crackdown.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124813721196067083.html

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/july/0702_admin_ice.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/obama-loses-immigration-allies/?page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7977741

Also, if he is not attempting to blur the lines, what is the purpose of downplaying the legal requirements of citizenship in favor of some vague, unifying notion of faith?

I don't see where he is downplaying the legal requirements of citizenship though..... Just saying that people do not have to be born here to become citizens here, which is true. Anyone can immigrate to this country and become a citizen legally. Of course, his support of amnesty, which he will no doubt use the points he has made in this speech to support it, is a stupid thing in my opinion.

 

[cammerfe]

As my Grandma always said, "Actions speak louder than words." There is no evidence anywhere of any attempt by the 'O' administration to actually do anything about the illegals pouring across the border. From them everything is theoretical. It's all vague talk instead of what's necessary---a hard comprehensive program to stop the flood and to, perhaps on a case by case basis, eject those who have recently snuck in. There is a history in this country of welcoming foreigners---witness the Statue of Liberty. But that has not, for many years, meant that all comers can just stream in. If the 'O' administration were willing to implement any orderly immigration rules, they'd be helping the States' attempt to produce order instead of announcing that they were going to sue.
KS

 

[FIND]

You are right cammerfe. Those news stories I posted are obviously just a conspiracy by the left and right wing media to hide the fact that Obama isn't sitting at the border with a flamethrower and an M1 Abrams keeping out the illegals.

Taking away jobs, stiffer penalties employers who hire illegals, actively verifying I-9s, and new electronic records and systems for verifying whether or not people are legal and their SSN is legit will do nothing to daunt the flood of illegals coming up here....

I'll admit. He hasn't increased border security as much as I would like. But, yeah.... to say that he is doing nothing is a blatant lie as well.

As far as the lawsuit goes.... I wouldn't worry too much about it. They don't really have any legal grounds to pursue a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, there is nothing unconstitutional about the law. This is most definitely a case where state sovereignty would win out. Whatever Hillary says, just do like I do with people like her or Palin, ignore it. Kinda like Dubya talking about science... pretty much all blah blah blah with no real meaning behind it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The a$$hole spoke with two tounges today, but that is nothing new.
In his speach he said it is logistcally impossible to deport the millions who are here illegally.
He is so full of sh!t.
They could do it, thay just don't want too.
Sure it would cost money, but so did those stupid bail outs.
Every ten years the government has a census.
Years ago the census was done by going door to door,and the same could be done to round up and deport all these illegal bastards.
This prick wants amnesty for the illegals, and nothing will change his mind.
Did he learn nothing from reading the history of the Regan amnesty policy?
When will this jerk wise up and start representing the people as he was ellected to do?
I think he should be impeached for not living up too the oath he took to defend this country, and it's constitution.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

http://www.newser.com/story/63365/obama-targets-employers-in-immigration-crackdown.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124813721196067083.html

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/july/0702_admin_ice.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/obama-loses-immigration-allies/?page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7977741



I don't see where he is downplaying the legal requirements of citizenship though..... Just saying that people do not have to be born here to become citizens here, which is true. Anyone can immigrate to this country and become a citizen legally. Of course, his support of amnesty, which he will no doubt use the points he has made in this speech to support it, is a stupid thing in my opinion.

Articles 1 through 3 tell the same story - that Obama is attacking businesses, not that he's trying to a) protect the border or b) remove illegals. Obama's specialty is attacking businesses. It's not surprising that you don't bother connecting the dots here. Here's an interesting money quote:

Obama is focusing on enforcement to fend off critics

Yeah, it's called 'lip service' for political reasons. I would expect a person politically savvy to understand what pandering is.

Article 4 doesn't say anything about what Obama is actually doing, just what a bunch of activists are whining about.

Article 5 is not found.

It might actually be a smart move to read your 'articles' before you link them. Just knee jerk googling isn't sufficient.

Now, let's talk about what Obama has actually done:

1. Refused to protect the borders
2. Torn down fencing
3. Sued Arizone for having the audacity to try to protect its own borders
4. Marched with illegal alien support groups
5. Threatened the GOP with no border control until they agree to amnesty
6. Given inflammatory speeches talking about how the illegals have a right to be here

 

[shagdrum]

FIND, why do you think Obama and his administration are demonizing and even misrepresenting the Arizona law?

 

[FIND]

Articles 1 through 3 tell the same story - that Obama is attacking businesses, not that he's trying to a) protect the border or b) remove illegals. Obama's specialty is attacking businesses. It's not surprising that you don't bother connecting the dots here. Here's an interesting money quote:

Yeah, it's called 'lip service' for political reasons. I would expect a person politically savvy to understand what pandering is.

Article 4 doesn't say anything about what Obama is actually doing, just what a bunch of activists are whining about.

Article 5 is not found.

It might actually be a smart move to read your 'articles' before you link them. Just knee jerk googling isn't sufficient.

Hmm, all those articles worked for me, and they all should be telling the same story. Just was trying to demonstrate how easy it was to find the stuff since there were those in this thread acting like they had never heard of this stuff. Attacking business? Well those businesses shouldn't hire friggen illegals. I wouldn't hire an illegal. They wouldn't come here in nearly as great of numbers if it wasn't SO DAMN EASY to get jobs here. I say first we take away their jobs, then drive buses to every home depot, and finally go door to door to pick up stragglers.

Now, let's talk about what Obama has actually done:

1. Refused to protect the borders
2. Torn down fencing
3. Sued Arizone for having the audacity to try to protect its own borders
4. Marched with illegal alien support groups
5. Threatened the GOP with no border control until they agree to amnesty
6. Given inflammatory speeches talking about how the illegals have a right to be here

I would LOVE to see you dig up any REAL proof of any of those allegations you are making here.

 

[FIND]

FIND, why do you think Obama and his administration are demonizing and even misrepresenting the Arizona law?

Because Holder is an idiot who didn't read the law and because Hillary Clinton is friggen nuts. Now, why not give me recent examples of their behavior that you call, "demonizing and misrepresenting Arizona law."

 

[shagdrum]

I would LOVE to see you dig up any REAL proof of any of those allegations you are making here.

#5 on Fosstens list was just in the news.

5. Threatened the GOP with no border control until they agree to amnesty​

YouTube- Kyl says Obama said no border security for political reasons

 

[FIND]

#5 on Fosstens list was just in the news.

Not interested in hearsay.

 

[shagdrum]

Not interested in hearsay.

I don't think you are interested in even considering the possibility that there might be some truth in those things fossten listed that you hadn't considered. I think the only thing you are interested in is spouting your view and dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[FIND]

I don't think you are interested in even considering the possibility that there might be some truth in those things fossten listed that you hadn't considered. I think the only thing you are interested in is spouting your view and dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you.

No, I asked you to post proof. Is hearsay admissible in a court of law? I wonder if there is a reason for that.

I do not engage in the practice of dismissing fact, only baseless opinion, which you seem to call fact QUITE often. Also, I always consider the possibility of those types of things. I am just not real quick to hate bashing and knee-jerk reactions. I prefer to stop and consider things, gather sources, and form an informed opinion.

When you asked me to put up or shut up, I gave you news articles to justify my statements. I even gave you a mix of conservative and liberal sources just to demonstrate good faith.

 

[shagdrum]

No, I asked you to post proof. Is hearsay admissible in a court of law? I wonder if there is a reason for that.

'

Is this a court of law?

I do not engage in the practice of dismissing fact, only baseless opinion, which you seem to call fact QUITE often.

Apparently it has never occurred to you that not all arguments necessitate facts for proof. In fact, on certain things material facts are impractical if not impossible. Unfortunately logical proof seems to constitute "baseless opinion" in your mind as you habitually dismiss logical proof as "baseless opinion" on this forum.

 

[FIND]

Is this a court of law?

No, but you still must meet a burden of proof. I drew the comparison to a court of law because you SHOULD understand the reasoning behind not accepting hearsay. Also, I have my doubts that he would make that statement as part of a sworn testimony, otherwise they would have had good cause to file a lawsuit against the US government. In my opinion, that would be an open and shut case and a sure-win for Arizona. Seriously, could you imagine the legal implications if the president were to actually deny border security to a state unless they will support one of his programs?

Apparently it has never occurred to you that not all arguments necessitate facts for proof. In fact, on certain things material facts are impractical if not impossible.

Then in that case, it is nothing more than theory. A statement such as this leads me to believe that you are demanding negative proof.

Unfortunately logical proof seems to constitute "baseless opinion" in your mind as you habitually dismiss logical proof as "baseless opinion" on this forum.

What logic? Just because something seems logical to you, does not make it "logical proof". You are familiar with the term non-sequitur (it does not follow.) I cannot make the same leaps in logic you do because I do not have the same opinions or values as you do. When you post something that is not backed by fact, reasoning, or anything else, it is just a "baseless opinion". When you follow an opinion up with reasoning, it becomes easier to understand your opinion, but this still does not equate opinion to fact. Besides, how again is this related to what you were just saying? I smell a red herring.

 

[shagdrum]

FIND, apparently you are incapable if discussing things in a civil, honest, respectful and objective manner; especially if there is any chance that your ego might take a hit.

I see no reason to waste anymore time with you.

 

[cammerfe]

Obstructionism

You are right cammerfe. Those news stories I posted are obviously just a conspiracy by the left and right wing media...

I'll admit. He hasn't increased border security as much as I would like. But, yeah.... to say that he is doing nothing is a blatant lie as well.

As far as the lawsuit goes.... I wouldn't worry too much about it...

No, just the left.

The reason I said, "...the 'O' administration..." is that there is some little bit being done. It's just being done in little pieces by the standing bureaucracies that were already going in that direction despite the foot-dragging and general attempts to ignore anything substantive, and to use all possible photo ops to 'make nice' on the illegals and their supporters. What I, perhaps, should have said is that the obummer is trying desperately to take the illegals' side of things and when pressed, point to the already-in-place programs to try to obscure the situation.

I don't 'worry' about the lawsuit. I simply see it as an example of the real view of the obummer administration. Instead of upholding the Constitution, they actively impede at every possible opportunity.

KS

 

[FIND]

No, just the left.

A couple of those news articles are from conservative sources, this was done to demonstrate that this was not just some story the left was using. Of course, there are so many biased news entities today, and so many HEAVILY biased news entities today, there is always someone who tries to appear credible and will distort reality to whatever they want it to be.

The reason I said, "...the 'O' administration..." is that there is some little bit being done. It's just being done in little pieces by the standing bureaucracies that were already going in that direction despite the foot-dragging and general attempts to ignore anything substantive, and to use all possible photo ops to 'make nice' on the illegals and their supporters. What I, perhaps, should have said is that the obummer is trying desperately to take the illegals' side of things and when pressed, point to the already-in-place programs to try to obscure the situation.

Honestly though, isn't this all any administration has done since the 80s? Wasn't Dubya the one who was always showing off how he could speak spanish to gain Hispanic voters? Seriously, you can't trust anyone who goes into the White House to REALLY take decisive action to solve illegal immigration.

I don't 'worry' about the lawsuit. I simply see it as an example of the real view of the obummer administration.

I don't think it is a 100% fair representation.

Instead of upholding the Constitution, they actively impede at every possible opportunity.

How do you figure?

 

[FIND]

FIND, apparently you are incapable if discussing things in a civil, honest, respectful and objective manner; especially if there is any chance that your ego might take a hit.

I see no reason to waste anymore time with you.

Why do you say that? All I ask you to do is provide justification for your accusations.

Please do point out how my last response was not civil, honest, respectful or objective.

Once again, you are forming an ad hominem argument instead of addressing the issue. Strange how I have never had a discussion with you in which you did not resort to some petty insult, or other ad hominem argument.