• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

drz-400 said:
Changing the subject? Haha, so what do you do for the ones we have educated?
Click to expand...

Well, if they are here illegally with their parents (weren't born here). Deport the illegal parents and the illegal kids and fine them the cost of the provided education (which they stole - the parents that is). If the children were born here, no charge, that's just the cost of providing education to our [future] citizens. As I said before, deport the family and when the children that were born in the US reach majority age they may apply for re-entry as citizens (and they'll be educated).
 
TheNextEra said:
Your lord and savior Reagan did it. Conservatives really are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Reagan amnesty is proof that the only thing amnesty does is encourage more illegal immigration and that any so called compromises are bogus. Probably not really a good idea to bring up Reagan in a amnesty thread if you are for amnesty.
 
Legalizing illegals, who had no say in breaking the law and have been good residents, should be given citizenship.
They have little to no ties to their birth place and are effectually Americans.

It's not right to punish children, for the mistakes of their parents.
 
clownboy said:
Well, if they are here illegally with their parents (weren't born here). Deport the illegal parents and the illegal kids and fine them the cost of the provided education (which they stole - the parents that is). If the children were born here, no charge, that's just the cost of providing education to our [future] citizens. As I said before, deport the family and when the children that were born in the US reach majority age they may apply for re-entry as citizens (and they'll be educated).
Click to expand...

So with your solution we still pay to deport an educated person to mexico and thereby losing any future benefits they would accrue to our nation and literally giving mexico all the benefits of our education system, and then pay more money to put them back through the citizenship process to bring them back over here. Man that sounds so efficient.

Or we could just give the high school educated kid a work permit and let him/her reapply for citizenship through a legal means, while working and being a productive memeber of our society, and keeping the people we pay to educate in the country.
 
TheNextEra said:
The topic of the thread is immunity offered to immigrants. Well, Reagan did exaclty that and the right voted for him twice.
Click to expand...


Reagan amnesty happened his second term, not before.So it doesn't really make any sense for criticizing 'right wingers' for voting for Reagan twice when amnesty happened after he was voted into office twice not before. If he enacted amnesty when he was governor of California then it might make sense to criticize 'right wingers' for voting for Reagan twice.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Legalizing illegals, who had no say in breaking the law and have been good residents, should be given citizenship.
They have little to no ties to their birth place and are effectually Americans.

It's not right to punish children, for the mistakes of their parents.
Click to expand...

Once they turn 18 they are no longer here against their will.They are no longer unwillingly breaking the law. They are making the consciences choice to be here illegally.They should be arrested,jailed for 6 months and deported like any one else who comes here illegally can be.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Legalizing illegals, who had no say in breaking the law and have been good residents, should be given citizenship.
They have little to no ties to their birth place and are effectually Americans.

It's not right to punish children, for the mistakes of their parents.
Click to expand...

There are a few logistic issues here...

How many years in the country does it need to be? If they were brought in at 17? 14? 8? What age does it need to be documented they were brought over?

What happens to their parents. If we're giving an illegal immigrant citizenship because we have verified they don't have a criminal record and other issues, then we must have some information about them in terms of where they're living, etc. Do the parents also essentially get a pass, but just not citizenship, because they brought a child with them for breaking the law?

And that's in terms of people who are of age that were brought here illegally. What about a 9 year old? If he's made a citizen, do the parents get to stay illegally and raise him here or does he have to get deported along with the parents and can come back on his own once he's reached the age of adulthood?

I actually don't have a issue in general with the notion of making it easier for children who were brought here illegaly to be able to gain permanent citizenship. However...I think there are a number of pitfalls that needs to be discussed and I think it can't be done simply on its own but must be combined with things that will discourage people in the future from simply taking advantage of that fact as a cheap, quick, easier means of getting their children citizenship and thus getting themselves sticking around.

However that's all secondary here...

The issue is not simply the immunity to illegal immigrants, but rather the means in which this is getting done. To me, this reach of Presidential Power is the more troubling (And before cries of HYPOCRITE, I was critical to many of the reaches of executive power on Bush's end as well) part of this then simply the attempt to allow certain illegals to stay here.
 
jamesrage said:
Once they turn 18 they are no longer here against their will.They are no longer unwillingly breaking the law. They are making the consciences choice to be here illegally.They should be arrested,jailed for 6 months and deported like any one else who comes here illegally can be.
Click to expand...

If you were brought here as an infant, never learned your home tongue, only know America.
You're effectually not an illegal.
 
Zyphlin said:
There are a few logistic issues here...

How many years in the country does it need to be? If they were brought in at 17? 14? 8? What age does it need to be documented they were brought over?

What happens to their parents. If we're giving an illegal immigrant citizenship because we have verified they don't have a criminal record and other issues, then we must have some information about them in terms of where they're living, etc. Do the parents also essentially get a pass, but just not citizenship, because they brought a child with them for breaking the law?

And that's in terms of people who are of age that were brought here illegally. What about a 9 year old? If he's made a citizen, do the parents get to stay illegally and raise him here or does he have to get deported along with the parents and can come back on his own once he's reached the age of adulthood?

I actually don't have a issue in general with the notion of making it easier for children who were brought here illegaly to be able to gain permanent citizenship. However...I think there are a number of pitfalls that needs to be discussed and I think it can't be done simply on its own but must be combined with things that will discourage people in the future from simply taking advantage of that fact as a cheap, quick, easier means of getting their children citizenship and thus getting themselves sticking around.

However that's all secondary here...

The issue is not simply the immunity to illegal immigrants, but rather the means in which this is getting done. To me, this reach of Presidential Power is the more troubling (And before cries of HYPOCRITE, I was critical to many of the reaches of executive power on Bush's end as well) part of this then simply the attempt to allow certain illegals to stay here.
Click to expand...

Some specifics should be done, to fix this.
It's a complicated situation.

Generally though, I'm referring to people who've been here for some time.
I don't necessarily believe the parents should be legalized, just the children, who are now adults.
They had no choice.
 
TheNextEra said:
Your lord and savior Reagan did it. Conservatives really are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

And Democrats supported internment camps yet claimed to be in support of minorities. Hypocrites.

See how stupid that was?
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you were brought here as an infant, never learned your home tongue, only know America.
You're effectually not an illegal.
Click to expand...

No, you're just benefitting from your parents' illegality. When the FBI catches a bank robber that has been active for decades without capture, do they allow the family and his/her children to keep the proceeds of the robberies?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some specifics should be done, to fix this.
It's a complicated situation.

Generally though, I'm referring to people who've been here for some time.
I don't necessarily believe the parents should be legalized, just the children, who are now adults.
They had no choice.
Click to expand...

That's the problem though.

There is a lot of specifics that should and need to be done. However, whether than trying to do this through the law and going through congress the President is simply doing it by power of the executive and ignoring those things.

Roughly 800,000 individuals supposedly are elligable for this. It is not believable to suggest that over those 800,000 somehow we would not find illegals with them that WEREN'T brought to this country while being a minor. However, based on what the Presidents said, there seems no intent to follow the law for those individuals. So while they may not be getting work permits handed to them, they're essentially being given immunity to stay as well.

Even if you agree with the general mindset seemingly at work here...it still should be going through the proper governmental processes.
 
Zyphlin said:
However that's all secondary here...

The issue is not simply the immunity to illegal immigrants, but rather the means in which this is getting done. To me, this reach of Presidential Power is the more troubling (And before cries of HYPOCRITE, I was critical to many of the reaches of executive power on Bush's end as well) part of this then simply the attempt to allow certain illegals to stay here.
Click to expand...

Some people care about how something is done, the process, whether it was done the "right" way. I am not sure what the legal precedent is, one way or the other. However, what I care about is results.

From what I can see, this is a common sense measure. Because it is very pointed it will prevent us from deporting people who I think very obviously should not be deported. It would be counter productive to do so and a waste of our national resources. Therefore, I am in support of this measure by Obama.

So if you care about how something is done, you have a point, but what I care about is what it actually accomplishes.
 
clownboy said:
No, you're just benefitting from your parents' illegality. When the FBI catches a bank robber that has been active for decades without capture, do they allow the family and his/her children to keep the proceeds of the robberies?
Click to expand...

That is kind of interesting...

Say a family steals some money...be it from armed robbery or some kind of softer form of theft...and then goes out and uses that money to buy their child a huge gaming collection and a really nice car and some expensive clothes. If it's then found out they stole that money...do those goods that they purchased for their child become confiscated? And if so, is that not "punishing" the child by taking away something they were simply given with no knowledge that it was bought with stolen property? Or what if they used a huge chunk to pay for the kids current semester in school....should the kid continue to have his college paid for in subsequent years because it'd be "punishing" him to deny him what he was going to be recieving through illegal activity?

I do see the situations having some significant differences but it is an interesting thought.
 
clownboy said:
No, you're just benefitting from your parents' illegality. When the FBI catches a bank robber that has been active for decades without capture, do they allow the family and his/her children to keep the proceeds of the robberies?
Click to expand...

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

If anything, they were under duress.
 
clownboy said:
Apples and oranges, but nice try. Reagan didn't grant amnesty - congress did. AND there was a whole lot more to that than this, it was supposed to come along with increased enforcement at the border. It was meant to wash our hands go forth and sin no more. But the securing of the border never happened.

Now we have a POTUS who is doing it by fiat, by executive power. Without the authorization of congress. Big difference.
Click to expand...

If Reagan signed a bill presented to him that equated to granting amnesty to illegal immgrants, he made amnesty the law of the land. There's no getting around that.

What Pres. Obama has proposed isn't amnesty. By executive order, he would authorize the approval of work permits to the children of illegal immigrants who:

• Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
• Be no older than 30,
• Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
• Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
• Have a clean criminal record.

A temporary measure that's no different than what's been proposed in the DREAM Act, highly suggested by Mark Rubio and likely to be endorsed by Mitt Romney (only Obama got to it first).

Obama administration won't seek deportation of young illegal immigrants - NBC Politics

First Thoughts: Romney's half pivot - First Read
 
drz-400 said:
Some people care about how something is done, the process, whether it was done the "right" way. I am not sure what the legal precedent is, one way or the other. However, what I care about is results.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
That's the problem though.

There is a lot of specifics that should and need to be done. However, whether than trying to do this through the law and going through congress the President is simply doing it by power of the executive and ignoring those things.

Roughly 800,000 individuals supposedly are elligable for this. It is not believable to suggest that over those 800,000 somehow we would not find illegals with them that WEREN'T brought to this country while being a minor. However, based on what the Presidents said, there seems no intent to follow the law for those individuals. So while they may not be getting work permits handed to them, they're essentially being given immunity to stay as well.

Even if you agree with the general mindset seemingly at work here...it still should be going through the proper governmental processes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Objective Voice said:
A temporary measure that's no different than what's been proposed in the DREAM Act, highly suggested by Mark Rubio and likely to be endorsed by Mitt Romney (only Obama got to it first).
Click to expand...

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"
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you were brought here as an infant, snip.. only know America.
You're effectually not an illegal.
Click to expand...

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.

never learned your home tongue,
Click to expand...

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.
 
clownboy said:
Apples and oranges, but nice try. Reagan didn't grant amnesty - congress did.
Click to expand...

Did he veto it and they over ride his veto? Reagan signed the bill,so yes he did grant amnesty.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I guess we can safely call it the "Obama dictatorship" now... Wouldn't you say?
 
jamesrage said:
Did he veto it and they over ride his veto? Reagan signed the bill,so yes he did grant amnesty.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom