Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 268

Thread: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Did you voice concern about the process when Obama was concentrating resources on deporting undocumented aliens with criminal records ... and thus obviously shifting resources away from deporting those without criminal records?
    Actually, yes. While I am in favor of getting rid of illegals aliens that have criminal records, I was against essentially aiming efforts in such a way that those who do not have a criminal record were ignored especially ones who were easily identifiable. If you're here illegally and we know you're here illegally you should be getting the boot. If you want to focus more on one area or another that's one thing. However, giving carte blanche freedom of having your criminal action ignored and even beyond that being given a benefit of the state is not simply "shifting concentration". It's erasing concentration and its basically stating "I know this is against the law, however as the executive I'm simply going to choose not to enforce the law."

    I've expressed the same issue with regards to fedreal marijuana laws. I'm in favor of marijuana being legalized. I think that the amount we spend on stopping people from doing something like that is RIDICULOUS. That said...it's still federal law right now and I disagree with any president just telling people "don't enforce the law". I think there's a large danger there.

    Blue Laws, IE things not enforced for nearly 50+ years and have simply not been taken off the books, is one thing. However, the executive branch simply ignoring the legislative branches laws because it doesn't agree with it on things that were just within the past few years active is a different ball of wax regardless of whose doing it.

    In the post I was responding to in the one you quoted me, the individual suggested that the President was okay in doing this because the Congress wouldn't pass the laws he wanted. To me that's problematic because it's basically showing the process and the notion of checks and balances as a sham and further empowers the Executive Branch beyond what it's already been empowered with; basically showing that the attempt to work through the proper process of congress is nothing but a dog and pony show and if the executive doesn't get its way then it'll just do it anyways.

  2. #92
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Again, there is no executive order here.
    Yet...

    "I think the action that the President took today makes it more difficult to reach that long term solution because an executive order is, of course, just a short term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents," Romney said. He didn't say whether he would seek the new rule's reversal.

    "If I'm president, we'll do our very best to have that kind of long term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the actions of their parents," the former Massachusetts governor added.
    Again, it's very likely Mitt Romney would do the exact same thing only via a bill from Congress.

  3. #93
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Except that isn't true.
    You can't take away some benefits of ill gotten gains.
    But all future benefit from those illegal gains is indeed taken away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The point is, many of these people were kids, were brought over as kids and have lived the majority of their lives as Americans.
    Now, because their place of birth is different and their parents broke the law, they must now lose the ability to reside in the U.S.
    Yes, that last at least is precisely the point. They, and their parents, are here illegally and now they must lose their ability to reside in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I mean, I get the whole problem with general illegal immigration, but don't you think you're taking it a bit too far, by throwing out people, who are essentially Americans.
    It's dumb and you're going to far, for no practical reason.
    No, because they are not "essentially Americans". They are beneficiaries of their parents' crime who are losing that benefit because we finally caught them and decided to act upon it.

    The practical reason is to discourage the behavior going forward. Just as the purpose of the consequences of most criminal law is deterrent.

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    In terms of concentrating resources...that's not really what this is.

    Say the city wanted concentrate resources in terms of law enforcement by focusing more on people running red lights then speeding. They put far more cops watching intersectoins then long stretches of road, they use traffic camers at red lights instead of heavy traffic areas, and other such things. However, they likely still have at least some cops doing speed checks and at the very least cops are still going to stop someone that goes zooming past them at a ridiculous speed.

    What they don't do is basically say "If you see someone going 20 over, don't stop them. Actually, more than that, we're going to go ahead and give people fully loaded EZpasses so they can speed even easier without having to worry about stopping at toll booths".

    This isn't reconcentrating resources. Its telling an entire group of people violating the law that we're just going to completely and utterly ignore you in terms of legality and even more than that we're going to give you things to make it even easier for you while you violate the law.

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Again, it's very likely Mitt Romney would do the exact same thing only via a bill from Congress.
    No.

    It's very likely Mitt would try to do something like it.

    Remember, Bush also TRIED to get a massive immigration bill with pseudo-amnesty passed. Remember, it didn't happen.

    Presidents are not Kings. It's likely mitt would try to do something like this. I'd say its far from likely that he'd succeed.

  6. #96
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In terms of concentrating resources...that's not really what this is.

    Say the city wanted concentrate resources in terms of law enforcement by focusing more on people running red lights then speeding. They put far more cops watching intersectoins then long stretches of road, they use traffic camers at red lights instead of heavy traffic areas, and other such things. However, they likely still have at least some cops doing speed checks and at the very least cops are still going to stop someone that goes zooming past them at a ridiculous speed.

    What they don't do is basically say "If you see someone going 20 over, don't stop them. Actually, more than that, we're going to go ahead and give people fully loaded EZpasses so they can speed even easier without having to worry about stopping at toll booths".

    This isn't reconcentrating resources. Its telling an entire group of people violating the law that we're just going to completely and utterly ignore you in terms of legality and even more than that we're going to give you things to make it even easier for you while you violate the law.
    Your right, it is not necessarily re concentrating resources, but something different. Here is my analogy, a cop pulls you over for speeding right before the speed limit sign changes, you are cooperative, and he decides to give you a warning. Happens all the time, because it is practical and the cop realizes while the speeder broke the law sometimes discretion needs to be involved, for the good of the public.

  7. #97
    Debate MMA
    Prof. Peabody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-30-12 @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,361

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Illegal Immigration needs to be addressed, AFTER we close off the borders with the returning military from the middle east. That has to be done first.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

  8. #98
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Reagan elected 1980
    Reagan elected 1984
    Immigration amnesty passes both houses of Congress and signed 1986.

    Yep, voted twice in support of something that happened after the fact. And again, an EO doesn't equal a bill that passes both houses and signed into law.
    Not to mention, a bipartisan bill that first passed through a Democrat controlled House. But yeah, it's probably all Reagan's fault.

    That bill also made it illegal to hire someone without documentation with the introduction of the I-9 form. Another subtle difference is that, since the bill made criminal the hiring of illegals, real people's livelihoods, both the employers and employees, were going to be effected. Amnesty sort of makes sense in that situation, saying that "While we haven't been enforcing this before and let you get cozy, we're shutting down the pipe NOW." Sort of a bass-ackwards habeus corpus thing.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  9. #99
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post
    If she was born in the U.S. she is a citizen and can go to college. The immigration status of her parents is irrelevant.
    My mistake that was a typo is should have read "brought into the US illegally".....

  10. #100
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    My mistake that was a typo is should have read "brought into the US illegally".....
    Then she should have a heck of a leg up in the legal immigration process. She knows english, is US educated and should have no problem getting sponsorship and a job. She can blame her parents for putting her in this position and the assholes here that made her parents think they wouldn't be caught, or that nothing would happen when they were.

    Btw, if they had pulled the same stunt with Brazil, coming illegally from some other country, and got caught, what would happen? The truth is most countries have the same policy, some even stricter. Just finished watching some episodic show from New Zealand dealing with their customs and border agents. They deport the whole family and then sort it out when they try to apply for entry the next time. Same goes for the UK.

Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •