• 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!

Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

  • Yes, focus on deporting dangerous criminals first.

    Votes: 12 41.4%

  • No, this is the WH bypassing Congress to implement 'backdoor amnesty.

    Votes: 15 51.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Total voters
    29
pbrauer said:
I am satisfied that the Obama administration is making sure the that the worse offenders will go. Due to the lack of personnel they may never go, that's the reality of the situation if the list isn't prioritized.
Click to expand...

Is that a "Yes" or "NO" Pete?
 
Grim17 said:
Is that a "Yes" or "NO" Pete?
Click to expand...
Are you a lawyer and think you have me on the witness stand? Quit with your authoritarianism, I answered my way. The next time you post a quote be honest and post a link to the source.
 
pbrauer said:
Are you a lawyer and think you have me on the witness stand? Quit with your authoritarianism, I answered my way. The next time you post a quote be honest and post a link to the source.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought... Won't admit the truth, and won't admit you're wrong.

Nice chatting with you Pete... lmmfao
 
Grim17 said:
That's what I thought... Won't admit the truth, and won't admit you're wrong.

Nice chatting with you Pete... lmmfao
Click to expand...
I'm not wrong and those people who participated in the poll at foxnews.com agree with me by over a 2-1 margin. :mrgreen:

Do You Agree With New Approach To Deportations? | FoxNews.com

And here's what you dishonestly left out of you link less quote:

One of ICE's central responsibilities is to enforce th~ nation's civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and. Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Brewer's assertion that the plan is an "amnesty" initiative is an outright lie. Immigrants who aren't deported may be allowed to apply for work permits — but the plan does not provide a path to citizenship. Moreover, the number of open deportation cases is currently in the neighborhood of 300,000 — a far cry from "millions." And some of those people will inevitably still be sent home.

Going over the cases, according to officials, will allow the government to use its limited resources to more efficiently process and deport those who truly pose a threat to public safety instead of spending time and money getting rid of those who just want to go to class. It's hard to see how Brewer could object to a policy that avoids tearing apart innocent families or ripping kids away from the only home they've ever known in order to excise the violent criminals she's so concerned about.
Click to expand...

Gov. Brewer: Obama Plan Could Be "Backdoor Amnesty" For "Millions" | Political Correction
 
Misterveritis said:
Self deportations is quite practical:
The new immigration law is regarded as the toughest in the nation, and it has stirred protests and lawsuits from the Obama administration, civil rights groups, and churches. The law will go into effect on September 1, unless blocked or modified by federal judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, who heard arguments in the case on Wednesday.

Business groups are also unhappy with the law because, as the Wall Street Journal wrote, it is “undermining Alabama’s economy.” Construction and agricultural interests are facing worker shortages as immigrants are leaving the state in droves. This shouldn’t be a surprise. The law was intended to drive illegal workers out of the state and open up jobs for unemployed Alabamians. We “cannot allow Alabama to become a sanctuary state,” Republican state representative Micky Hammon, a co-sponsor of the legislation, told me.

The law, modeled after the Arizona illegal immigration bill enacted in 2010, sets stringent restrictions. It requires schools and employers to verify an immigrant’s status in the United States, criminalizes the use of a fake ID, allows law enforcement to question suspected illegal aliens, and bars citizens from aiding unlawful immigrants in such ways as renting housing to them.​
Easy peasy.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile you ignore the part that says how it is hurting Alabamas economy. The people of Alabama can't afford to work for the same wages as those immigrants. Lets see how this works out in a year from now, maybe less. Also I said I think schools should verify citizenship.
 
Post all the crap you want Pete... It still doesn't change this:

pbrauer said:
The policy says process the most violent cases first, please explain how that lets anyone go. Why would you be against deporting the most violent cases first and working down????
Click to expand...

Or the fact I showed you where it said that, in the letter from the administration:

ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency's enforcement priorities, namely the promotion ofnational security, border security, public safety, and the integrity ofthe immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 2,2011, which this memonmdum is intended to support.

Because the agency is confronted with more administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise "prosecutorial discretion" ifit is to prioritize its efforts. In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like anyother law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise"it in the ordinary course of enforcement1.When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope ofthe enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.

In the civil immigration enforcement context, the term "prosecutorial discretion" applies to a
broad range ofdiscretionary enforcement decisions, including but not limited to the
following:

• deciding to issue or cancel a notice ofdetainer;
• deciding to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear (NTA);
• focusing enforcement resources on particular administrative violations or conduct;
• deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest for an administrative violation;
• deciding whom to detain or to release on bond, supervision, personal recognizance, or other condition;
• seeking expedited removal orother forms ofremoval by means other thana formal removal proceeding in immigration court;

Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Priorities ofthe Agency for the
Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens

• settling or dismissing a proceeding;
• granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order ofremoval;
• agreeing to voluntary departure, the withdrawal of an application for admission, or other action in lieu of obtaining a formal order ofremoval;
• pursuing an appeal;
• executing a removal order; and
• responding to or joining in a motion to reopen removal proceedings and to consider joining in a motion to grant relief or a benefit.
Click to expand...


And you still don't have the integrity to admit what it says, or admit you were wrong... Instead you attack me and pretend the facts don't really exist.

Good job!
 
Flyersfan314 said:
Meanwhile you ignore the part that says how it is hurting Alabamas economy. The people of Alabama can't afford to work for the same wages as those immigrants. Lets see how this works out in a year from now, maybe less. Also I said I think schools should verify citizenship.
Click to expand...
LOL. I did not ignore it. Getting rid of a huge problem, illegal aliens, will result in some inconveniences. Big deal. Americans will get the jobs that the Mexican slave labor is doing today.

Deporting 20 million illegals may be too hard. Having them self deport is easy. The part I like best is that eventually they will all end up in New York, Illinois and California.
 
earthworm said:
The old approaches seem to be ineffective.
Interesting to note the conservative(old and tired) reactions, which are predictable.
Eventually, our people will wake up and modernize our immigration laws.
Click to expand...
What would you like to see done?
I prefer that only people with needed skills or those who marry Americans and who can prove they will be taken care of by someone other than the taxpayer get in.
 
Grim17 said:
Is that a "Yes" or "NO" Pete?
Click to expand...
Uh, he said it was back door amnesty. The one term Marxist president Obama needs the votes. Although Democrats get nearly all of the felons, the dead, the moochers, the lazy, the repeat voters, he believe the illegal alien vote will get him across the finish line.
 
Councilman said:
This is Obama showing that he thinks he can circumvent the law and the Constitution and dictate what he wants.
Click to expand...

The constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government authority over immigration laws, so how on Earth can he be circumventing the constitution?
 
jamesrage said:
Not only no but HELL NO! this is the white house bypassing congress to enact amnesty. He should be thrown out of office for it. The one thing a president should never do is basically encourage a unarmed invasion of the country he is running.
Click to expand...
I lived in Arizona for over 50 years. What we have right now is working. Our law enforcement gets to brag about what it’s doing but effectively gets nothing effective done. The Republicans get to have illegals as in issue. And the businesses get to have all the low paid illegal workers they want. Ineffective laws are proposed and sometimes passed to good political effect but without screwing anything up for businesses. What the heck is the problem with this? It’s not going to change with businesses running things in Joe Arpaio’s town and Janice K. Brewer's state. Got it?
Now you are saying that Obama is supporting the Republicans in Arizona? Please explain.
 
Misterveritis said:
LOL. I did not ignore it. Getting rid of a huge problem, illegal aliens, will result in some inconveniences. Big deal. Americans will get the jobs that the Mexican slave labor is doing today.

Deporting 20 million illegals may be too hard. Having them self deport is easy. The part I like best is that eventually they will all end up in New York, Illinois and California.
Click to expand...

No you are not getting it. You are deliberately ignoring the facts. We can;t afford to pay Americans what we pay Mexicans. Also knock off the slave crap, slaves weren't paid and were not free to leave. Also this is not going to stop them from working in many industries such as agriculture and construction. They work for cash.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
No you are not getting it. You are deliberately ignoring the facts. We can;t afford to pay Americans what we pay Mexicans.
Click to expand...
Of course we can. We could afford to pay lots of Americans better than what we pay illegal aliens. We call it welfare.

Flyersfan314 said:
Also knock off the slave crap, slaves weren't paid and were not free to leave.
Click to expand...
Is permanent sub-class more to your tender liking?
Flyersfan314 said:
Also this is not going to stop them from working in many industries such as agriculture and construction. They work for cash.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is working just fine. When the employer is caught they lose their business license. It only takes one. And it is already working here in Alabama. The illegals are moving to Tennessee.
 
Grim17 said:
Post all the crap you want Pete... It still doesn't change this:



Or the fact I showed you where it said that, in the letter from the administration:




And you still don't have the integrity to admit what it says, or admit you were wrong... Instead you attack me and pretend the facts don't really exist.

Good job!
Click to expand...

Lets reexamine post #68
Grim posted text without link to the source said:
ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency's enforcement priorities, namely the promotion ofnational security, border security, public safety, and the integrity ofthe immigration system.
Click to expand...

Grim's conclusion based upon text:

Grim17 said:
Translated Pete, that means that if the illegals who have been questioned, detained or being processed for deportation don't meet the priorities for deportation outlined in the new policy, and/or fall under the categories they consider not to be a public safety or national security danger, they are encouraged not to eddetain them or process them for deportation... In other words, just let them go.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about your conclusion is that since ICE doesn't have the required resources to process all of the cases at present, your conclusion is true whether "prosecutorial discretion" is used or not. (You might look up that word "discretion.") So, without the policy it would seem some dangerous cases would not be processed.

And since there is nothing in this policy that could be honestly construed as amnesty or a "mirror" of the Dream Act is quite simply ridiculous.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
No they can't get federal welfare. This is a fact. They can go to schools and get care at hospitals. States should be confirming green card numbers and illegals should not be able to come to public schools here or get licences. Just because I'm not for deportation does not mean I'm for limiting what they can do. Deporting is not practical and would hurt agriculture.
Click to expand...

They get state welfare. This is a fact. The massive influx of illegals have clogged schools, required enormous bi-lingual educational costs. Perhaps you didn't notice when I previously said "In California, welfare agencies, along with hospitals, schools, DMV and law enforcement to name a few, are legally prohibited from even asking the immigration status of applicants. All they have to do is present a social security or green card number (which is not validated), and voila! Taxpayer's money in their pockets. "

Deporting illegals will not hurt agriculture. In fact, it will help stop the hideous working conditions and exploitation that Ceasar Chevez's Farm Labor Union once stamped out. Chevez dispised illegals, because he knew that they would undercut the workers here legally and damage gains the union had made. That's exactly what is happening.

The vast majority of illegals, especially in California, where illegals cost the state more than 20 billion dollars annually, do not work in agriculture. They work in restaurants, construction, hotels, landscaping, retail, manufacturing, in just about every conceivable entry-level position in the state... which means that legal residents and citizens no longer have those jobs available to them. California's young people are having more and more difficulty finding entry level jobs, which have been snapped up by illegals... because employers do not bother to check for stolen social security and green card numbers, since there is no significant chance of them ever being caught and fined.

Seriously, dude, you do not know what you are talking about.
 
liblady said:
they get it illegally.......which begs the question: why hasn't california enforced their rules?
Click to expand...

California's political legislature is very far left, and our two largest cities are "sanctuary cities". Dispite the enormous 20 billion illegals cost the state each year, not to mention 60-70 hospitals in the state that have closed because of the huge cost of treating illegals, California has actually made it illegal for schools, welfare agencies, hospitals, DMV, law enforcement, etc., to even ask about legal status, let alone verify the validity of social security/green card numbers. They've effectively thrown open California's border, dumped the state's treasury on the ground, and said, "Help yourselves."
 
DiAnna said:
They get state welfare. This is a fact. The massive influx of illegals have clogged schools, required enormous bi-lingual educational costs. Perhaps you didn't notice when I previously said "In California, welfare agencies, along with hospitals, schools, DMV and law enforcement to name a few, are legally prohibited from even asking the immigration status of applicants. All they have to do is present a social security or green card number (which is not validated), and voila! Taxpayer's money in their pockets. "

Deporting illegals will not hurt agriculture. In fact, it will help stop the hideous working conditions and exploitation that Ceasar Chevez's Farm Labor Union once stamped out. Chevez dispised illegals, because he knew that they would undercut the workers here legally and damage gains the union had made. That's exactly what is happening.

The vast majority of illegals, especially in California, where illegals cost the state more than 20 billion dollars annually, do not work in agriculture. They work in restaurants, construction, hotels, landscaping, retail, manufacturing, in just about every conceivable entry-level position in the state... which means that legal residents and citizens no longer have those jobs available to them. California's young people are having more and more difficulty finding entry level jobs, which have been snapped up by illegals... because employers do not bother to check for stolen social security and green card numbers, since there is no significant chance of them ever being caught and fined.

Seriously, dude, you do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

There are certain positions, like those in restaurants where we should not have illegal immigrants. I am not defending illigal immigration as a whole. However in agriculture it is necessary . You inored when I said I believe they should check

"Perhaps you didn't notice when I previously said "In California, welfare agencies, along with hospitals, schools, DMV and law enforcement to name a few, are legally prohibited from even asking the immigration status of applicants. All they have to do is present a social security or green card number (which is not validated), and voila! Taxpayer's money in their pockets. "
Click to expand...

I said I agree this is a problem. Maybe you should read my posts instead of just assuming I am for allowing illegal immigration in every industry. I told you I don't think they should get licenses and welfare agencies in the state should check citizenship status.
 
Also Illegals don't take up nearly as much medical resources as rumors say;

Is Lou Dobbs Lying about Hospital Closings? - Page 1 - Arts - Houston - Houston Press
MMS: Error

It would not be fair to place the blame solely on undocumented immigrants, but certainly, they are a contributing factor." Okie's article also revealed that illegals make up only about 20 percent of the country's residents who lack medical insurance, and about 10 percent of the "uncompensated care in California hospitals" — 10 percent too much, sí, but hardly the invasion the now-dead Cosman and Dobbs want Americans to believe. Strangely, Dobbs has yet to mention Okie's article.
Click to expand...
 
Let me make myself clear on my positions:

I do not support any kind of social service for illegal immigrants, except for emergency medical care.
I do not support them working in industries where they take American jobs, such as manufacturing and restaurant.
As long as we can get Americans to work on farms I don't have a problem with getting illegal labor out of agriculture.
A country has to have control over its immigration, I just want ti to be done in a way that doesn't hurt industries who have come to rely on it.

We Need a New Generation of American Farmers - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom