DREAMer confronts Steve King: Here, tear up my DACA card if you don’t want me here

posted at 3:21 pm on August 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

As many others have noted, the high point here is Rand Paul bailing out mid-bite as soon as he hears the word “DREAM.” He’ll get in your face on foreign policy and he’ll push bold, controversial ideas like restoring voting rights to felons, but put him on camera in the middle of a squabble between Steve “Cantaloupe Calves” King and a pair of illegals when he’s gearing up for 2016 and all that’s left is one of those little dust clouds like in a Roadrunner cartoon.

If not for that, my favorite moment would be Erika Andiola reassuring King that DACA is constitutional because her companion’s an attorney and he thinks it is. Back in reality, Conn Carroll notes correctly that the fact that Andiola has a “DACA card” at all is proof that what Obama’s been up to isn’t executive business as usual:

In the past, presidents have granted Deferred Action status to small groups of immigrants for humanitarian and foreign policy reasons (President Bush granted such status to foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina).

But never before had a president granted such broad based relief to the general illegal immigrant population, created a special form for them to apply, and required a set application fee to receive Deferred Action benefits.

Obama’s DACA program changed all that. Instead of just prioritizing otherwise law biding illegal immigrants, like Andiola, at the bottom of the immigration enforcement list, Obama gifted them a legal status and work permits (and is even forcing states to issue them drivers licenses). This is a night and day change from “what his predecessors have done (or rather, not done)” on the issue.

And now we’re on the verge of expanding that treatment to five million more people. What you’re seeing here, actually, is a microcosm of the national immigration debate. King opposes amnesty through whatever means but is especially exercised about Obama’s DACA power grab. Andiola and her friend, while willing to argue the legal merits half-heartedly, are clearly following a “let’s do what’s ‘right’ and worry about what’s constitutional later” approach. And of course reporters are on alert for anything King says that can be used as a cudgel against him and the GOP, with underwhelming results this time out. Maybe they’ll have better luck after Obama announces DACA II and Republicans get really mad.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

But you just rejected equivalence with Down’s Syndrome

Fixed. Stupid auto-correct.

The Schaef on August 7, 2014 at 12:05 PM

listens2glenn on August 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM

This is the actual debate concerning the Establishment Clause, had by the Founders, Aug 15, 1789. I think you’ll find it illuminating. If the next image link does not work, simply change the recNum count in your browser to 381 and so on to continue going through the archive.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Yeah, cause Lord knows no one has ever sued someone for refusing to cater to a gay couple.

That’s a slippery slope argument. Refusing to legislate, change or remove a law under the impetus that the action might get challenged would make legislation a moot point.

No, I don’t. The fact that civil unions have been dismissed from the national discussion on gay marriage is a self-evident truth.

I think I may have misunderstood your tact, then. You’re specifically saying the national discussion, as opposed to the use, of civil unions? I had inferred from earlier comments that you were implying a lack of interest in civil unions from the homosexual community at large, not simply talking points for “leaders”.

Because, as I noted earlier, the sarcasm beneath the statement escaped you.

This is striking me as backtracking, on your part. Namely because if it was sarcasm concerning the matter, there was no point to bringing it up as a defense for your side of the debate in the first place.

There’s nothing ad hominem about it. All I am saying is that people need to own the reality of the proposal.

You implied directly that I was being dishonest, on the grounds that my view do not match yours; attacking personal character rather than the debate itself. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

Yes. Like cancer. But you just rejected equivocation with Down’s Syndrome, and I don’t think you’re going to win a lot of points saying that gay marriage should be allowed because homosexuality is a programmed disease…. person with Down’s Syndrome is not a normal, healthy individual; it is someone with a medical disability. There’s nothing shameful about acknowledging a clinical fact but you prefer to marginalize them in order to normalize homosexual behavior.

First, cancer is not a syndrome, but a damaged cellular replication in response to outside physiological stimuli. Down Syndrome is a congenital defect. My simple point was that arguing the two categories as simple numbers is a fallacious over generalization that does nothing for your side of the debate. You’re talking 23M people compared to 308K of a 308M strong populace. The numbers are not statistically, physiologically or logically related. You are the only one equating homosexuality to a cancer, disease or congenital defect. Arguing “clinical fact” actually requires some semblance of fact. This is essentially saying that individuals with yellow or violet eyes, which accounts for under 5% of the population, are somehow “clinically” not a normal and healthy individual. It’s a fallacious statistical argument.

Says the person who has repeatedly insisted that US law is derived from prior theocracies.

Getting tired of reiterating that I was specifically discussing marriage/promise laws and the like, derived via English Common Law, needing further analyzing. Stop generalizing.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Census numbers for reference, specifically these, concerning the numbers used in the my post.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

That’s a slippery slope argument. Refusing to legislate, change or remove a law under the impetus that the action might get challenged would make legislation a moot point.

I’m not sure where you got the notion of “refusing to legislate, change or remove a law”.

I had inferred from earlier comments that you were implying a lack of interest in civil unions from the homosexual community at large, not simply talking points for “leaders”.

You put the leaders in quotes, but they are the ones who drove the agenda to this point, so there’s no functional difference.

This is striking me as backtracking, on your part.

It is not backtracking. The claim that arguments pointing out the lack of equality in marriage “equality” has always been dismissed by others as “slippery slope”, and it has always been a stupid response. Misunderstanding on your part is not backtracking on my part.

You implied directly that I was being dishonest

You inferred it. I did not imply it. To this point I have not presumed you to be a gay person who had a dog in this fight.

First, cancer is not a syndrome, but a damaged cellular replication in response to outside physiological stimuli. Down Syndrome is a congenital defect.

Both of them are nature’s way of weeding out the population. You pointed out a difference that does not correct anything, because my comparison did not need correcting on this point.

My simple point was that arguing the two categories as simple numbers

You were the one who decided to assert that the numbers were of some significance to the discussion. You introduced that line.

You are the only one equating homosexuality to a cancer, disease or congenital defect.

You were the one who referred to homosexuality as nature’s way of weeding out the population. Again, you were the one who introduced this, not I.

This is essentially saying that individuals with yellow or violet eyes

Yellow and violet eyes can be passed along through heredity. So there’s nothing essential about this poor comparison. And if now you want to say that Down’s Syndrome is not a medical condition, then I don’t have the energy to argue that point with you.

Stop generalizing.

You first.

The Schaef on August 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I’m not sure where you got the notion of “refusing to legislate, change or remove a law”.

Because the initial Supreme Court decision concerning polygamy, I followed your slippery slope comment with, was directly argued on the premise of slippery slope. In other words, the basis is already legal precedent.

You put the leaders in quotes, but they are the ones who drove the agenda to this point, so there’s no functional difference.

I’d differ on that, given that one of the grievances in that community is the fact that existing civil unions do not cross state lines. Something that has been thoroughly covered by the “leaders”, functional or otherwise, in the debate.

The claim that arguments pointing out the lack of equality in marriage “equality” has always been dismissed by others as “slippery slope”, and it has always been a stupid response.

How exactly is having issue existing legal precedent BASED openly on a slippery slope argument concerning “marriage equality”, gay, polygamous or otherwise, stupid?

You inferred it. I did not imply it.

Really? Let’s refresh…

The simple truth is that to make gay marriage equivalent is to fundamentally change what it is to be married, and an honest person would embrace that.
The Schaef on August 7, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Given that I disagree with the argument that it “fundamentally changes” marriage, given that it has absolutely no effect on heterosexual married couples, such as my wife and myself, then the direct implication is that I am dishonest.

Both of them are nature’s way of weeding out the population.

One is a limitation method, the other is congenital selection, or “weeding out”. Weeding out population would be diseases, etc. You left the inference that if something is a minority of a population, it is unnatural, which is distinctly fallacious.

You were the one who referred to homosexuality as nature’s way of weeding out the population.

Incorrect. Natural population curbing, yes, weeding out is a far different thing. Weeding out would be natural selection, like congenital defects, that without medical science, would result in that genetic line ceasing.

Yellow and violet eyes can be passed along through heredity. So there’s nothing essential about this poor comparison. And if now you want to say that Down’s Syndrome is not a medical condition, then I don’t have the energy to argue that point with you.

….you realize that Down Syndrome has a hereditary component, correct? Or are you arguing that homosexuality is strictly a matter of choice, rather than physiological premise?

You first.

Sorry, where did I generalize?

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Off subject, the geometric growth of our dialogue is vaguely amusing, lol.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Yes. Hilarious.

The Schaef on August 7, 2014 at 3:57 PM

In other words, the basis is already legal precedent.

And there’s no chance that will ever be overturned, and no one is arguing for it in the wake of the surge of gay marriage rulings, right?

I’d differ on that, given that one of the grievances in that community is the fact that existing civil unions do not cross state lines.

So the leaders do not represent the attitudes of the larger community, except the leaders DO represent the attitudes of the larger community?

Given that I disagree with the argument that it “fundamentally changes” marriage… then the direct implication is that I am dishonest.

No, it means that you are wrong, and you need to embrace the reality of the change.

You left the inference that if something is a minority of a population, it is unnatural

You know, you chuckle about the length of our discussion, and yet how much shorter they would be if you would quit extrapolating the things that I did say, to create an argument against something I did not.

What I said, specifically, is that just because a thing can occur in nature does not mean that all things which occur in nature can or should be treated as the norm.

Natural population curbing, yes, weeding out is a far different thing.

Yes, please, let’s have a big sidebar about the exact terms that you would use to define things, instead of proceeding along a premise that is mutually understood by virtue of the fact that you provided said premise (and thus should have no difficulty understanding).

you realize that Down Syndrome has a hereditary component, correct?

So? Does heredity make a Down’s Syndrome patient a normal, healthy person?

The Schaef on August 7, 2014 at 4:06 PM

And there’s no chance that will ever be overturned, and no one is arguing for it in the wake of the surge of gay marriage rulings, right?

Your rebuttal against a slippery slope which you missed was established precedent…is another slippery slope argument?

So the leaders do not represent the attitudes of the larger community, except the leaders DO represent the attitudes of the larger community?

You’re misremembering that particular portion of the argument came from the fact that I mistook you as meaning that homosexuals were magically not participating in civil union.

No, it means that you are wrong, and you need to embrace the reality of the change.

Well, thank you, Caesar. You’ll have to forgive me if that particular sentence doesn’t have enough supportive logic to suddenly change my mind.

…yet how much shorter they would be if you would quit extrapolating the things that I did say, to create an argument against something I did not.

With the exception of the “leaders” misunderstanding, I haven’t inferred anything you haven’t directly implied.

What I said, specifically, is that just because a thing can occur in nature does not mean that all things which occur in nature can or should be treated as the norm.

Perhaps there’s some misunderstanding about the definition of the term “unnatural”: something that doesn’t occur in the ordinary course of nature. So, when you say that it’s statistically uncommon and not normal, through use of a horrid Down Syndrome analogy, you are by definition saying that it is unnatural. Not sure if you don’t want to field that term because of the negative connotations, but that doesn’t make it any less accurate a description of what you’re promulgating.

Yes, please, let’s have a big sidebar about the exact terms that you would use to define things, instead of proceeding along a premise that is mutually understood by virtue of the fact that you provided said premise (and thus should have no difficulty understanding).

I’m sorry that specificity and accuracy in terminology is consistently inconvenient to your argument.

So? Does heredity make a Down’s Syndrome patient a normal, healthy person?

No, it’s a process by which natural selection, sans medical science, would eliminate a specific genome. Referring back to the previous “sidebar” comment, it’s actually funny.

Anyhow, I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate; no sarcasm. It’s Friday, I’ve been off-duty a few hours and I intend to go get some diving in. If the thread is still open on Monday I’ll rejoin. Have a great weekend, man! (Sorry if it’s Friday where you’re at)

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Err, about to be Friday morning, rather. Whole International Date Line thing is a pain in the ass for calling back home.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Stay classy, DREAMers.

TimBuk3 on August 7, 2014 at 11:07 PM

I haven’t inferred anything you haven’t directly implied.

Well, I have told you multiple times – directly, not through implication – that I was not saying what you claimed I said. If you want to continue making yourself into a victim, vaya con dios. I can’t make it any more plain than I have.

So, when you say that it’s statistically uncommon and not normal… you are by definition saying that it is unnatural.

If I meant unnatural, I would have said unnatural. You are arguing with me about the definition of a term I did not even use (yet again, you create controversy through concepts you introduce into what I said).

Down’s Syndrome occurs in nature. It is not synthesized. That does not make it a healthy or normal condition.

I’m sorry that specificity and accuracy in terminology is consistently in this particular instance inconvenient irrelevant to your argument.

FIFY

Anyhow, I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate

Two days ago, it was a debate. By the end, it was you going off on multiple tangents over minutiae not germane to the topic, mostly because you decided I meant things other than what I said, even after multiple clarifications. But hey, you “thoroughly enjoyed” doing that, so there’s that, I guess.

The Schaef on August 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Marriage is an ecclesiastical law remnant in what is supposed to be a land of secular law.

Ebola on August 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM
.

There is no such thing as “secular law.”

That’s why the Founders (the same ones who wrote the First Amendment) used the Bible standards of morality as a basis for establishing laws and ordinances defining acceptable vs unacceptable behavior.

The Founders firmly believed that religion should effect and influence government, but NOT the other way around. They began their legislative sessions, and public meetings with prayer.

All of this was standard, daily practice, without any part of our government resembling a “theocracy”.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM

.
Having a prayer before legislating is an excercise of the First Amendment; a prime red herring, as it doesn’t suddenly mean the laws passed were non-secular. The “Bible Standards of Morality” are essentially the same morals in every other religion: don’t kill your neighbor, etc.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

.
It’s not the law that is “secular”, it’s our governance that is “non-theocratic”.
Your statement that “the ‘Bible Standards of Morality’ are essentially the same morals in every other religion” has some credence. But I’ll bet there are LOTS of Imams who would contend with you, over it.
.

Notice that there was no law against profaning God? That doesn’t do much for the argument of Bible Standards.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

.
No, that is a perfect example of a law that WOULD cross-the-line into a theocracy. Bible standards of morality that govern how ‘man relates to man’ don’t demand that you believe in, and recognize God.
Laws against “profaning God”, would.
.

Throw in the fact that Thomas Paine and others whose writing founded the rational basis for the establishment of the Constitution, were considerably anti-organized religion, it gives a rather large pause to your assertion.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

.
The opposition of Thomas Paine to “organized religion” is very well documented. I can’t confirm specific “others”, but it’s reasonable to assume that a portion of the population of that day were anti-organized religion as well, probably a percentage in the double digits.
I would still insist they were a minority.
.

Direct evidence being Jefferson and Madison’s letters. If you have some historical evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. If you’ve never read the Founders’ letters before, Founders Online by the National Archives is excellent source material or you can get the direct text of the debates had on the floor during the making of our initial laws from the Library of Congress

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

.
I have read some of Jefferson’s and Madison’s letters, but I don’t recall reading letters with content pertaining to our subject matter, at present.
This will take some time … and we can always pick it back up again in the next “civil rights” or “gay marriage” related thread.
.

Religion’s press into secular legislation is individuals voting the conscience and religious values, not the denomination or entire religion dictating anything. You seem to forget that there were severe denominational issues during the Founding of this nation. Laws in Mass and other states were unconstitutional, struck down as such, in that they required a holder of office to be of specific religion or denomination.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

.
I know full well the ‘denominational division’ and related hostility that existed in that day. Much credit goes to Samuel Adams for demonstrating just how stupid such hostility and prejudice was as regards Christian vs Christian.
I totally agree with you that there was no one “denomination or entire religion dictating anything”, and that individuals voting their own conscience and moral values pertaining to their recognition of God, is how the Biblical moral standards of acceptable behavior became part of our law of the land.

If any attempt would have been made by any one denomination or religion to gain and exercise such control, that would have constituted a theocracy.
.

It is possible to exercise your religion without insisting that its laws become a nation’s laws on the sole basis of your valuing your freedom to exercise your religion over others. I’d get excommunicated for saying that, but we’ve got a new Pope, so maybe not.

Ebola on August 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

.
It is NOT possible for people of conflicting, contradictory standards of morality to coexist, whether the standards come from religion or not.

I absolutely insist that most everyone of that day and time, including atheists, accepted the Bible standards of morality as the societal standards of defining “normal”, because a majority of citizens preferred it that way, and those standards worked . . . . . until the Warren Court, and the 1970s unbridled hedonism.

I don’t believe I “hate” homosexuals, but I know that I will never accept homosexuality as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of “normal”.

listens2glenn on August 8, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4