Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-04-04 00:38||
#2 "Unlawful Presence Waivers"
Oh, look! It's a euphemism!
But the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relatives," according to the DHS.
I suppose if that's such a big deal then they could just return to Ye Olde Sod with their beloved?
Posted by tu3031 2012-04-04 00:56||
#3 There really is no limit to what this President to side-step Congress. Posted by Deacon Blues
I've never owned a Bentley. Consequently, I'll probably never have an appreciation for what I've missed.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-04-04 00:58||
#4 The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens.
Are we talking about B-HOs not-yet-deported relatives here?
Posted by SteveS 2012-04-04 01:42||
#5 They will be the ones to help undermine the country from within and kill people on street corners.
Posted by Zebulon Shinesing7359 2012-04-04 08:18||
#6 Orwell sues for infringement.
Posted by Iblis 2012-04-04 10:24||
#7 Is little Barry upset because they won't let him have his way?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-04-04 11:31||
#8 Ooops. That comment was supposed to go below. Need coffee.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-04-04 11:33||
#9 So a nine-months pregant woman crosses the border and gives birth in the U.S.
The kid's a citizen, right. Them momma can get the waiver, so she doesn't have to be separated from the kid.
AND they get to vote!
Posted by Bobby 2012-04-04 12:21||
#10 If Congress is just going to sit one their hands and let him do this kind of thing, why do we need them? They could be eleminated and save us a lot of money. Just let the dictator do it.
Posted by OCCD 2012-04-04 14:06||
#11 But the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relatives," according to the DHS.
Between 1996-2010, I and/or my ex were AD Army (which is, in no small part, why he is my ex and not my current spouse.) So I'm sorry, but every time some whiny civvie trots out this bullshit, I want to scream and tell them to go piss up a rope.
Posted by RandomJD 2012-04-04 14:40||
#12 I and/or my ex were AD Army - and that means?
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-04-04 17:08||
#13 Active Duty.
Posted by Canuckistan sniper 2012-04-04 17:16||
#14 I was guessing it wasn't attention deficit. But as you got divorced, maybe it was!
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-04-04 18:34||
#15 That's not funny, limey. As I am sure many here can attest, the last ten years have been very tough on the US military. My point was, aside from these waivers being stupid, and illegal (the role of the Executive Branch is to execute the laws), it is a damned insensitive argument for the US government to make - and only underscores how Democrats wrote off so many US citizens long ago. No, they can't count on the military vote anyway. But they could at least make an effort not to actively alienate us.
Posted by RandomJD 2012-04-04 19:29||
#16 Hey BP ( is that 'Bright' a sarc nickname?) RandomJD says the last 10 years have been tough on the mil- let my see that 10 and raise about another 20; try going home to the Spousal Unit and tell her that you got your deployment date pulled left a bunch and now she gets to deal with the kids, the car, and oh yeah, a short paycheck about to get smaller cuz you need some living money ( ain't talking steak and limos, either).
unless you wore the uniform or lived w/ someone who did, i suggest you rethink that please. thank you.
Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-04-04 22:10||