President Obama vs. Governor Jan Brewer

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

It seems to me that this immigration thing is never going to get solved.

I'm surprised that people aren't more up-in-arms about the new procedural change at UICIS that allows people to process their spouse's paperwork before sending them back home to their home country, not knowing whether they'll be able to return and when. If nothing else, I was hoping it would shed some light on the fact that marrying an American is NOT the automatic greencard the movies make it out to be (most of those plots involve expiring visas, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax). There are thousands of people out there with US Citizen spouses and children who live in fear that they will be deported and never see their families again because there is no law allowing them to get legal papers without them returning to their home country for a minimum of six months, usually longer, not knowing if they'll ever get to come back. If someone told you that you had to willingly leave your spouse and children and it's a throw of the dice whether you get to come back, are you leaving?

/Woah, Soapbox

All of the hassle/wait times is because of the amount of fraud that goes on even with the current steps and procedures in place that couples have to do. If we gave insta-citizenship the second the marriage license was issued it would be quite the mess.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I haven't seen any videos of this incident. Do we really know what is being said, outside of the speculation from news agencies?

The quoted section says they were smiling and talking. How do we know she wasn't in the middle of the story and that the camera caught her at a bad moment?

/random thought

My thoughts exactly. We really don't know what the exchange was at all and as far as anyone knows HE could have said something to her to set her off ( Obama is suing her you know). Either way, I'm not surprised that the media is trying to portray this as Brewer being a crazy bitch chasing Obama out on the tarmac to cuss him out. LOL

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

All of the hassle/wait times is because of the amount of fraud that goes on even with the current steps and procedures in place that couples have to do. If we gave insta-citizenship the second the marriage license was issued it would be quite the mess.



My thoughts exactly. We really don't know what the exchange was at all and as far as anyone knows HE could have said something to her to set her off ( Obama is suing her you know). Either way, I'm not surprised that the media is trying to portray this as Brewer being a crazy bitch chasing Obama out on the tarmac to cuss him out. LOL

Obama isn't suing Jan Brewer.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

All of the hassle/wait times is because of the amount of fraud that goes on even with the current steps and procedures in place that couples have to do. If we gave insta-citizenship the second the marriage license was issued it would be quite the mess.

Not being able to obtain citizenship without leaving your family for more than 6 months seriously is not even in the same ballpark as insta-citizenship. Just because something requires time and procedure, doesn't mean it should require what it currently requires. There is a middle ground.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

...HE could have said something to her to set her off

Even the articles state that Gov. Brewer claims that the President either set her off at that moment or in the past. Does it really matter whether the President said something Gov. Brewer disliked which made Gov. Brewer point a literal finger at the President? I think not.

***
I hate how the cameras move away from them once they end the handshake and start talking. LOL.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...nt-Obama-video

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Obama isn't suing Jan Brewer.

Obama's DOJ is/was suing the state of AZ and IIRC Brewer was listed named in the lawsuit, so yeah Obama was/is suing Brewer (in proxy at least). I'll admit I'm not up to date on whats going on with that but taking into account Brewer had her own lawsuit against the Obama administration that was thrown out last year I'm not surprised that there is bad blood between the two.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Not being able to obtain citizenship without leaving your family for more than 6 months seriously is not even in the same ballpark as insta-citizenship. Just because something requires time and procedure, doesn't mean it should require what it currently requires. There is a middle ground.

Like a K-3 visa maybe?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Even the articles state that Gov. Brewer claims that the President either set her off at that moment or in the past. Does it really matter whether the President said something Gov. Brewer disliked which made Gov. Brewer point a literal finger at the President? I think not.

***
I hate how the cameras move away from them once they end the handshake and start talking. LOL.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...nt-Obama-video

Does it matter? I don't know, but what I do know is that we really don't know what went down on the tarmac here... Brewer might just be a "hand talker" lol. I'm sure there was some heated words exchanged, but only Obama and Brewer knows exactly what went down. I'm not privy to listening in on Obama's phone calls and meetings but given the nature of politics I'm sure heated exchanges happen all of the time, just not caught on tape.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Does it matter?

No, it doesn't.

And if Brewer is a hand talker, she has hopefully learned her lesson.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Like a K-3 visa maybe?

At this point, it still requires the undocumented spouse/parent to leave the country without a guarantee that they'll ever be allowed back in (and if they are, it's a minimum of six months later). That's unacceptable.

[AOII Angel]

Government officials differ in opinion everyday including ending up on different sides of lawsuits. Arizona sued the Federal government over the border issue and the Obama administration sued Arizona. Obama did NOT sue Jan Brewer, and to pretend like it is the same as a personal suit is ridiculous. She isn't personally responsible for the outcome and won't be personally liable for any damages. She isn't being sued for anything. As a governor, her name gets used as the official face of our state. If she can't handle that, and it leads to her wagging her finger in the face of visiting dignitaries, then she needs to get a grip. It's not the reason behind all of this anway.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

At this point, it still requires the undocumented spouse/parent to leave the country without a guarantee that they'll ever be allowed back in (and if they are, it's a minimum of six months later). That's unacceptable.

The key word here is undocumented. When you try to bypass immigration laws when entering the country it only ends up convoluting the whole process of trying to stay in the country for the immigrant. Changes to the process are on the horizon though, so we shall see....



ETA-

President Obama speaks about the encounter-

“I think it’s always good publicity for a Republican if they’re in an argument with me,” Obama said of their most recent meeting. “But this was really not a big deal. She wanted to give me a letter, asking for a meeting. And I said, ‘We’d be happy to meet.’
“Last time we met, she wasn’t fully satisfied. But, you know, I think this is a classic example of things getting blown out of proportion.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...of-proportion/

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

President Obama speaks about the encounter-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...of-proportion/

The President is supposed to find a smooth way to rectify and silence the situation. Gates-Cromley-Beer, anyone? Obama-Trump, anyone? The President did not publicly respond to the "you lie" incident because it spoke for itself and the President's silence was golden in that instance.

They can "change the story" now to silence the incident but...okaayyyyyyy...I still see a pointed finger.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Obama's DOJ is/was suing the state of AZ and IIRC Brewer was listed named in the lawsuit, so yeah Obama was/is suing Brewer (in proxy at least).

This is sort of like saying Phil Knight is suing Reebok for patent infringement. It's correct in the sense that Obama is head of the Executive branch, but it seems fairly reductionist.

After all, in another stilted sense, you and I are suing Jan Brewer.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is sort of like saying Phil Knight is suing Reebok for patent infringement. It's correct in the sense that Obama is head of the Executive branch, but it seems fairly reductionist.

After all, in another stilted sense, you and I are suing Jan Brewer.

Is Phil Knight suing Reebok? No, it would be Nike who would be suing right? But if Phil Knight is the CEO of Nike and is the one who made the call to sue and demanded his lawyers file a patent infringement lawsuit against Reebok where does the difference lay?

And since neither of us have any input or control of who the DOJ chooses to go after, no its not the same.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Is Phil Knight suing Reebok? No, it would be Nike who would be suing right? But if Phil Knight is the CEO of Nike and is the one who made the call to sue and demanded his lawyers file a patent infringement lawsuit against Reebok where does the difference lay?

Saying "Obama sued ____" implies a level of control Obama doesn't have.

He can likely push for an action, and can probably kill a given action if he chooses as the guy at the 'top of the pile', but he certainly can't do any of that without the DOJ's backing and vetting of the case ... he's at 'best' a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Likely, his day-to-day interactions with the DOJ are similar to Phil Knight's over his legal department - which is to say, oversight, but not direct management.

It's not really a major issue - you're more right than wrong, but the language is a bit strong and might be taken to imply something more about Obama himself. I think it's pushing it to say it was "Obama" as if it were him and him alone.

EDIT: I just realized that the disconnect might be coming from the military ... people often say "Bush invaded Iraq" or similar, to shorthand standing as CIC, and I didn't even consider you might be making that kind of connection, so my bad. I still think that the role of the President in relation to the DOJ (as I understand it) is different, especially given the nature of the title of Commander in Chief and the ceremony and etc. that comes with it, as well as the nature of foreign policy. I well may be wrong.

And since neither of us have any input or control of who the DOJ chooses to go after, no its not the same.

I didn't mean that they were the same ... but the logic could be contorted to be similar. After all, Obama is "in charge" of the DOJ, and the DOJ represents the interests of the American people with their explicit consent to do so.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Saying "Obama sued ____" implies a level of control Obama doesn't have.

He can likely push for an action, and can probably kill a given action if he chooses as the guy at the 'top of the pile', but he certainly can't do any of that without the DOJ's backing and vetting of the case ... he's at 'best' a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Likely, his day-to-day interactions with the DOJ are similar to Phil Knight's over his legal department - which is to say, oversight, but not direct management.

It's not really a major issue - you're more right than wrong, but the language is a bit strong and might be taken to imply something more about Obama himself. I think it's pushing it to say it was "Obama" as if it were him and him alone.

EDIT: I just realized that the disconnect might be coming from the military ... people often say "Bush invaded Iraq" or similar, to shorthand standing as CIC, and I didn't even consider you might be making that kind of connection, so my bad. I still think that the role of the President in relation to the DOJ (as I understand it) is different, especially given the nature of the title of Commander in Chief and the ceremony and etc. that comes with it, as well as the nature of foreign policy. I well may be wrong.

Co-sign.