- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Again. How? You need to support that statement.
He's modifying the visa process. He doesn't have that authority.
Again. How? You need to support that statement.
"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),” said House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers in a statement Thursday. “This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the "E-Verify" program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to "de-fund" the agency.
Could Republicans 'Defund' Obama's Immigration Order? - NBC News
I see a lot of folks saying that Congress could de-fund this EO. It doesn't depend on federal funding, it's funded by fees.
Although some some
A government agency that is totally self funded? There's no such thing. :lamo
Who, how many and on what grounds? Be specific.
A government agency that is totally self funded? There's no such thing. :lamo
Does that matter? I thought it was an impeachable offense to go beyond what congress authorized, for any reason.
Are there some circumstances in which "changing the law" is acceptable and others in which it is not? Can you give me your criteria for that?
I'm sure if Reagan were alive today, he would be saying "Fool me once......."
And yet... that's pretty much what will end up happening. Republicans don't have the supermajority required to get one of their bills to the president without him threatening to veto. So, if Democrats play their cards right, they can get Republicans to play nice like they were before the election and live up to their ideas of giving illegal immigrants a way to get right with the law.
He's modifying the visa process. He doesn't have that authority.
They have that now; obey the law and apply for entry from one's country of origin (current citizenship). To assert, as Obama does, the we, the nasty US citizens, have somehow made (forced) these illegal aliens to break the law is nonsense. They entered, or remained, in the US illegally all on their own placing their own children in that situation along with themselves UNLIKE those that did not and await their chance to enter legally.
To assert that forgiveness of illegals from 5 years ago (and further back) does not harm those illegals from 4 years, 11 months and 300 days back, much less those that remain on a waiting list for that long is extremely dishonest. This is simply a toe in the water test for Obama; if its okey dokey to let 4 or 5 million get amnesty (permission to have entered legally) then why not every one of them? What ever happened to equal protection of the law? What of sterile (or gay) illegals that, by no fault of their own, have not been able to produce (anchor baby) offspring are caught?
Defund ICE? Isn't that just effectively granting amnesty to everyone since nobody would be enforcing any of it?
How? Work permits? Not even close. They are still illegals. He's simply choosing not to deport them today. He could his mind tomorrow. He's simply exercising prosecutorial discretion and no one seriously argues that he doesn't have that power as head of the executive branch. Further the President has broad statutory
authority completely separate from his prosecutorial discretion to not deport people and to allow the issuance of work permits.
No one has gotten amnesty. We are simply choosing to not deport them today. That may seem like splitting hairs to you but it isn't. The next POTUS can start deporting people the day after he's sworn in.
They have that now; obey the law and apply for entry from one's country of origin (current citizenship). To assert, as Obama does, the we, the nasty US citizens, have somehow made (forced) these illegal aliens to break the law is nonsense. They entered, or remained, in the US illegally all on their own placing their own children in that situation along with themselves UNLIKE those that did not and await their chance to enter legally.
To assert that forgiveness of illegals from 5 years ago (and further back) does not harm those illegals from 4 years, 11 months and 300 days back, much less those that remain on a waiting list for that long is extremely dishonest. This is simply a toe in the water test for Obama; if its okey dokey to let 4 or 5 million get amnesty (permission to have entered legally) then why not every one of them? What ever happened to equal protection of the law? What of sterile (or gay) illegals that, by no fault of their own, have not been able to produce (anchor baby) offspring are caught?
Greetings, ttwtt78640. :2wave:
That time period puzzled me also. One would have thought that those that have been here for less than five years would be the first group selected. It is interesting, though, that the five-year and older period is the one that will exempt over 147,000 unaccompanied children. Those children have to be fed, clothed and schooled and otherwise taken care of, which costs us lots of money that isn't being reimbursed by their home countries. hmmmm......
I see a lot of folks saying that Congress could de-fund this EO. It doesn't depend on federal funding, it's funded by fees.
Although some some
The house cannot defund an agency that they never appropriated funds to.
USCIS obtains over 80% of its funding from fee revenue. After consistently declining from
FY2003 to FY2008, the portion of USCIS’s budget from appropriations increased consistently for
fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. In its FY2011 budget, the agency has requested additional
funds to defray the cost of military naturalizations and refugee and asylee applications, thereby
shifting this cost from immigration service applicants to U.S. taxpayers. Although the agency has
been appropriated several hundred million dollars in the past decade, these appropriations have
largely been directed toward specific projects, such as the backlog reduction initiative.
Consequently, USCIS fee revenue must cover overhead and adjudication costs for the agency to
operate efficiently.
Yes, it matters. It's germane to the debate. Either oost the information, or admit that you're wrong about the whole mess.
Not enough time to settle in, learn English and make anchor babies yet? The problem with less than five years is that yesterday also qualifies so Obama has to ease us into that level of compassion.
Using this logic, if a policeman didn't stop everyone breaking the speed limit he would be violating his oath. He has no right to allow 3 or 5 mph over the limit and only stop those excessive speeders.
Except you just said that entitlements would be "reformed." It doesn't seem like you know whether you're coming or going.
If he's the one that defines "compassion," then I'll pass. Most of us do not base what we do on a political agenda, but give to charities and other organizations that actually help people instead. There was a deal made with somebody, or they would not have placed ads six months earlier for "chaperones" for those unattended children. Why do this to children, especially young ones?
Again, this is false - the President is not using "prosecutorial discretion" here, as he did with the Dreamers. He is overriding the law and creating a process out of thin air.
Which is why he himself said for years that it would be illegal for him to do so.
No one has gotten amnesty. We are simply choosing to not deport them today. That may seem like splitting hairs to you but it isn't. The next POTUS can start deporting people the day after he's sworn in.