“Even on the left” is why I responded; it makes it sound like the left would be more amenable to the $6 tomato.
But, yeah, that just won’t happen. It’s apparent from the amount we pay police officers, firefighters, teachers, and so on, relative to the amount we pay other professions.
No need to worry about $6.00 tomatoes. Labor accounts for only 10% of the cost of produce. So you could double the cost of labor an an item of produce that costs $1.00 goes up to a whopping $1.10. Triple it and you’re at $1.20.
Is this the pit? Why are you allowed to call me a basement dwelling gamer because I think we should not live in complete serfdom to the rich we helped make wealthy? For your information, I have lived on my own since 18 years old with zero help and it’s nobody’s goddamn place to criticize where I am in life.
Relax. I was using the royal “you”. Your post said “we all deserve”. My response referred back to all of “you”.
I’ve heard of the royal “we”. Not royal “you”…
That depends on how much of this land is only arable due to irrigation with unsustainable water sources.
You don’t think a 10% rise in the cost of food would have serious economic consequences?
Hmm. I just assume that it was similar to the royal “we”. I now see that the phrase is not used that way. In any case, I was, obviously, explaining that I was using it in the plural sense. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Ignorance fought.
Not really, no. Especially not when you consider the upside.
yay
A copy of the memo can be located here. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9078024/Memo_exec_branch_authority.pdf
I see two different actions here. First, is the decision not to prosecute and the other is to allow these people to apply for and receive work authorizations for two years.
I am sympathetic to the argument of prosecutorial discretion. As a prosecuting attorney myself, we do make decisions as to which cases we want to prosecute and which we do not and coordinate our efforts with law enforcement.
For example, public intoxication is essentially being in a public place while in a state of intoxication, a class b misdemeanor, a crime. So, technically, the police could, if they desired, wait outside a bar and issue public intoxication tickets to all the drunks exiting the bar and entering into a public place. However, they have the discretion not to do so, they in fact do not do so, and we have chosen not to prosecute in such a situation.
We understand, practically, they cannot remain in the bar after hours to sober up and have to left the establishment when it closes. This, to some extent, forces them to enter a public place in a state of intoxication. So while we have a technical violation of the law itself, law enforcement and the prosecutor’s office has chosen not to prosecute these individuals for P.I., unless of course they are causing a disturbance or being an nuisance of some kind.
So I am sympathetic to the prosecutorial discretion argument and I think it has some merit. Choosing not to prosecute, however, is different from authorizing them to apply for and receive work authorization for two years.
I wonder whether the decision to allow them to apply for work authorization and receive it for 2 years is legal.
I will say, however, according to Plouffe’s own comments, this is merely giving ICE prosecutors another option besides deportation proceedings. Now, an ICE prosecutor can choose to dismiss deportation allegations and the proceedings against an alien and allow them to apply for work authorization or choose to initiate and/or proceed with deportation proceedings rather than exercise Obama’s option.
I think Obama does have the discretion to refuse to prosecute generally in regards to some specific group of people but whether he can authorize them to apply for 2 year work authorizations is a different issue.
No matter how incompetent some insist on making this administration out to be, I sincerely doubt that they could let a mistake of this magnitude through. I’d be very surprised if the admin doesn’t have legal justification for this.
It’s happened on a smaller-scale, case-by-case basis for many years. I couldn’t quote you chapter and verse, but it’s certainly not unprecedented.
If anyone caught last night’s Daily Show, there was a rather on-point segment. They showed a clip of Hannity showing a clip of Obama saying he couldn’t ignore the law regarding deportations (implying that he couldn’t do what he’s doing). Then they showed the rest of Obama’s comments, which Hannity had cut off, in which said he could do exactly what he’s doing now.
:: bump ::
More details re: deferred action for young people
The application form (and many important logistical details) hasn’t come out yet, though.