Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 268

Thread: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

  1. #71
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Apples and oranges, but nice try. Reagan didn't grant amnesty - congress did.
    Did he veto it and they over ride his veto? Reagan signed the bill,so yes he did grant amnesty.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #72
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    As long as you are in this country illegally then you will always be an illegal.It doesn't matter if you know your home tongue or not or how long you been here.
    I understand that, regardless though, children didn't make the call, to break the law.
    Their parents did.

    If these, now adults, are good citizens, doing everything else right.
    Why deport them?

    It serves no purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I find that hard to believe.A lot of immigrants and illegals know little to no english when coming here if thye don't come from a english speaking country.
    Children who come here, tend to become proficient in English, even if their parents aren't.
    Many of them, have little to no connection with their home country, if they came here as children.
    Sending them back, makes no sense.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #73
    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
    Curious, did you feel the same way in terms of the "results" of getting potential intelligence information of the "results" of potentially keeping dangerous combatants off the battle field based on the "process" of enhanced interrogation acts or through indefinant imprisonment for Enemy Combatants?

    I understand people who want to say the "ends justify the means". However, I want to see if this is a consistent view of if the ends only justify the means when the ends is something you desperately want and the means is something you don't like.

    You state what you care about is "what it actually accomplishes" seeming to suggest that you're universally and "ends justifies the means" guy.
    My political views have actually changed quite a bit over the course of being on this board. You may be able to dig something up I said 2 years ago that may be different. But yes, at this point I would be in support of "enhanced interrogation" if it does work better and saves american lives. Of course this is another debate. But I would say my views are fairly consistent, if not, whatever, you can call me a liar.

    Maybe in certain situations where it is difficult to say whether or not something has "better" or "worse" results I will make a deontological argument based on what I think is right or wrong, but I think it is pretty clear cut here. Also, I have no reason to despretaly want amnesty anyways. I am not hispanic, no one in my family is. I dont know one person who this will help. I literally think it is a good idea for the reasons I have already said.

  4. #74
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    I guess we can safely call it the "Obama dictatorship" now... Wouldn't you say?

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Did he veto it and they over ride his veto? Reagan signed the bill,so yes he did grant amnesty.
    Yep, Reagan granted amnesty. There's really no two ways around it.

    However, that doesn't make the notion that, "OMG they supported it then 20+ years ago so ALL OF THEM, even those who couldn't even vote for Reagan back then, are hypocrites now for opposing it", any less idiotic.

    Reagan did grant amnesty, with the understanding in part that there was going to be action taken to curtail future illegal immigration. Not shockingly, many of that curtailing action didn't come to fruition.

    By doing it, we also saw first hand the after affects of doing such action...namely, that it becomes a known idea that if you get in here illegally that politicians may end up granting you amnesty and allowing you citizenship, as we saw numbers skyrocket to larger then they were prior to Reagan signing off on Amnesty. People who like to scream "HYPOCRITES" seem to like to believe that no new factors could possibly have came into the equation in the 20+ years since amnesty was last tried. Sadly for them, their imagination doesn't jive with reality and we DO have new information and data to go off of when making the decision.

    Additionally it also ignores that Reagan himself admitted that giving Amnesty was a mistake. SO basically, the suggestion of hypocrisy for opposing it now is basically saying "You are never allowed to think you [or your side] has made a mistake in the past and thus take a different approach).

    Furthermore, it ignores the fact that in the mid 2000's...led in part by a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN senator...many conservatives and republicans fought against the notion of amnesty. Note again, that's a Republican President and Republican Senator...not just doing it "when a Democrats in office".

    Finally, as Fiddly so WONDERFULLY pointed out...attacking an entire ideological side for hypocrisy based on actions decades in the past is akin to saying that liberals are hypocrites for supporting minorities when they interred japanese, germans, and italian minorities in the past. Basically, it's a dumb argument.

    So yes, trying to pass the buck for Reagan and acting like it wasn't his fault for granting amnesty is wrong. He signed it...he didn't have to sign it...he's culpable. However, trying to decry all conservatives of never being able to be against amnesty...even DECADES later...without being hypocrites is also stupidly wrong.

  6. #76
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yo'ure leaving out a bit of informatoin.

    The DREAM Act, suggested by Mark Rubio and endorsed by Mitt Romney follows proper legislative process.

    Obama's actions completely jump that.

    They are similar in their ends perhaps but their means are significantly different. One follows the traditional and typical manner of properly enabling such a thing. The other expands the Executive Branches power even further then it already is and does it on the power of only one branch of government, thus removing some checks and balances.

    So no, you're wrong in saying its "no different"
    Didn't leave it out at all. I did state in my post that Obama's work permit measure would be by Executive Order versus Reagan's signing amnesty into law via a bill from Congress.

    I do understand that process matters, but do you really think if Romney were to win the presidency wouldn't incorporate this very measure into immigration law? I think not! But again, process does matter. I'd rather see such a measure go through congressional channels as well, but the Democrats and Pres. Obama tried that and Congress rejected it. But now that a prominent Hispanic politician who happens to be the front runner for the GOP VP nomination, suddenly this route to allowing young Hispanics who were brought here by their parents and know no other country as their homeland, suddenly the GOP presidential nominee with "consider looking into it"?

    It's very doubtful the Mitt Romney would have considered this measure on his own. For him just as with Pres. Obama, this is a carrot thrown in the direction of the Hispanic vote....plain and simple. I don't disagree with it, however.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-15-12 at 05:32 PM.

  7. #77
    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
    Of course not, but are the kids punished for the parents choice to break the law?
    No.

    If anything, they were under duress.
    Yes they are "punished" in that they lose all access to what the ill-gotten gains provided to them. In this case, the children aren't being punished by being deported, but losing the access to ill-gotten gains.

  8. #78
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I understand that, regardless though, children didn't make the call, to break the law.
    Their parents did.

    If these, now adults, are good citizens, doing everything else right.
    Why deport them?

    It serves no purpose.
    Now that they are adults they are making the called to break the law. Illegals are not citizens, they are citizens of the countries they are from.


    Children who come here, tend to become proficient in English, even if their parents aren't.
    Many of them, have little to no connection with their home country, if they came here as children.
    Sending them back, makes no sense.

    Children of immigrations both legal and illegal tend to be bi-lingual,

    Yes it does make sense sending them back since they are here illegally. Allowing illegals to stay just because their parents brought them over only sends the message that you should bring in more kids and that they kids don't even have to be legal to stay here. This makes illegal immigration even worse. It amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire and expecting it to help put it out.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #79
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I agree with this.
    Not a fan of executive orders.

    This should be done through legislative means and those who are here illegally and were adults, should have something done.
    Just to be clear, this isn't being done by executive order. Granted, a rose by any other name....

    Nor, as some have suggested, is it illegal. The executive always has discretion in how a policy is implemented. In this case, the funds and mechanisms the president has to combat illegal immigration are totally insufficient to address the problem categorically, so he has to prioritize the way he approaches it. To that end, over the last few years Obama has concentrated the administration's efforts on deporting illegals with criminal records. I don't recall any Republicans objecting to that policy decision as being a breach of separation of powers.

    In this instance he has decided to shift resources away from deporting illegals who were brought here as children. Naturally that will free up resources to address other illegals.

    Clearly he is just pandering evangelicals!

    [WASHINGTON, DC — Dr. Richard Land, a top conservative evangelical leader, came out strongly in favor of President Obama’s new immigration policy today, slamming Republicans who would call the move “amnesty.”
    STRASSER: I know you were talking about the idea of calling it amnesty and you were saying it isn’t amnesty because…

    LAND: They haven’t done anything wrong. In order to get amnesty, you’ve got to have done something wrong. These young people are innocent. They haven’t done anything wrong. To me, this is the low-lying fruit of immigration reform. This ought to be something we can all unite around. They have to have been under 16 when they got here, they got to be under 30. He’s not granting citizenship, he’s granting a pathway to legal status. He’s making it so they’re protected from being deported and they can get on with their lives and their education with serving in the military. Investing themselves in our nation and our nation’s future. Who can be against that?

    KEYES: What’s your reaction to people who call this amnesty?

    LAND: They need a course in remedial English. It’s not amnesty.

    STRASSER: Do you have any advice?

    LAND: Yeah, I would say to the Romney campaign, this is the right thing to do. You should applaud the president for doing the right thing and encourage Congress to follow up by codifying it into law.
    Top Conservative Evangelical Leader Supports New Obama Immigration Policy, Urges GOP To 'Applaud The President' | ThinkProgress
    J/K. The timing of this certainly suggests that it's being done to curry favor with hispanic voters, but OTOH, it is totally consistent with Obama's long-standing support of the DREAM Act. My only question is, why didn't he do it sooner? In any case, I think it's the right thing to do and I think it will help Obama in the election.
    Last edited by AdamT; 06-15-12 at 05:34 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #80
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I do understand that process matters, but do you really think if Romney were to win the presidency wouldn't incorporate this very measure into immigration law? I think not! But again, process does matter. I'd rather see such a measure go through congressional channels as well, but the Democrats and Pres. Obama tried that and Congress rejected it.
    So process matters...unless the process doesn't go the way you want it, so then **** process?
    Last edited by Zyphlin; 06-15-12 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Edited as I read that as Pres not VP

Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •