Thursday, September 3, 2015

What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing immigration law?

A clerk refuses to enforce the law about a gay couple.

A president refuses to enforce the law about 11 million illegal immigrants.

The clerk should just say that she's using prosecutorial clerical discretion. It works for Obama. 

10 comments:

  1. You mentioned earlier about the hypocrisy of this. Does anyone see the hypocrisy of a thrice divorced woman making decisions about who can be married? No, you wouldn't because you agree with her decision. How about the hypocrisy of accepting a salary paid for by a couple legally entitle to a service she is legally obliged to provide and then denying the service. Has she offered to reimburse her salary? I didn't think so.

    She is nothing more than a self-righteous buffoon. Maybe that is why you support her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her hypocrisy (or lack thereof, her deeply held Christian beliefs came after her divorces) is irrelevant. If "the law" must be followed and any public servant openly defying what is taken to be "the law" can be jailed for not following a court order, why couldn't Obama be arrested if a right-wing judge issued him in contempt for not enforcing immigration law?

      Delete
    2. Billy: the whole Democrat-Left agenda for the past 6 years (and longer) has been "Ideologically-motivated selective disregard for the law". Immigration law, sanctuary cities, IRS, Hillary's emails, a million examples.

      To jail a Christian clerk for doing something that actually defines our entire federal government policy for the past 6 years is jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

      I mean, shit, Obama unlawfully exempted entire sectors of the economy (unions, Democrat contributors) from provisions of the ACA--pure political corruption.

      Not a peep out of you libtard assholes. A clerk won't issue a marriage license to a couple gays--throw her in jail!

      Delete
  2. [How about the hypocrisy of accepting a salary paid for by a couple legally entitle to a service she is legally obliged to provide and then denying the service. Has she offered to reimburse her salary?]

    How about the hypocrisy of [Obama] accepting a salary paid for by a [nation] legally entitled to a service [he] is [constitutionally] obliged to provide and then denying the service [immigration enforcement]. Has [he] offered to reimburse [his] salary?

    This is just too easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are talking about a clerk, not Obama. Because you think that Obama is breaking the law, that it is OK for everybody to break the law?

      I noticed that you didn't comment on the irony of a thrice divorced clerk passing judgment on who is allowed to be married.

      Would you defend her if she refused to grant licenses to inter-racial or inter-faith couples based on her religious beliefs?

      Delete
    2. [Because you think that Obama is breaking the law, that it is OK for everybody to break the law?]

      That's the best you can do?

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      Not enforcing the law sometimes is sensible when enforcing the law has desired consequences. Many of the 11 million illegal migrants have jobs, poorly paid jobs, that American citizens or legal residents are not willing to do.

      Deporting illegal migrants with jobs often puts their employers into financial difficulties if they can't get employees to replace the now deported workers.

      Matt Taibbi in 'the Divide' documented this happening. Obama in 2012 actually required all jurisdictions to enforce 'Secure Communities' which required the police to run immigration checks on all persons arrested for offences, including driving without a licence, and to enforce the law.

      Which was very lucrative for the police, in fines, and private companies contracted to run detention centres prior to deportation.

      Retreating from such a policy is actually sensible. How much would it cost to deport 11 million people, particularly adding in the hit to the domestic economy from the loss of workers?

      If America is anywhere similar to Australia, it would also deport a fair number of legal immigrants in the 11 million illegal ones. Bureaucrats often make mistakes. In Australia, we actually managed to deport two citizens in recent years.

      Delete
    4. "If America is anywhere similar to Australia, it would also deport a fair number of legal immigrants in the 11 million illegal ones. Bureaucrats often make mistakes. In Australia, we actually managed to deport two citizens in recent years."

      In Canada we recently deported a man who was born and raised in Canada simply because our current government has the same xenophobic mind set as Mr. Egnor.

      Delete
    5. The current Australian government is now proposing to deport Australian citizens, retrospectively, if they've committed certain crimes, and they have, or potentially could have, dual citizenship in another country.

      I don't know the current proposals, but the original one would have had a British migrant, now a citizen, deported for defacing Parliament House in protest against Australia's involvement in the 2003 Iraqi war.

      Anyway. It seems as though Michael has bipolar disorder. He seems to be in the manic phase, putting up a lot of posts about nothing much at all. Perhaps someone ought to ensure he's taking his lithium?

      Delete
  3. he answer is that it depends on the country and, in the case of a bi-national couple, asylum lawyer San Diego

    ReplyDelete