View Poll Results: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, focus on deporting dangerous criminals first.

    12 35.29%
  • No, this is the WH bypassing Congress to implement 'backdoor amnesty.

    20 58.82%
  • Other

    2 5.88%
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 95

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

  1. #51
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyersfan314 View Post
    They don't get welfare. If they have children here then the children get welfare but it has to be distributed to someone who is legally in the US. This is one of the biggest misunderstanding on the issue of immigration.
    The states certainly do this.

    In addition we need illegal labor in this country. We can't afford to pay people a living, not minimum, but a living wage to pick our crops. The law should not be enforced blindly. People are not thinking practical about these things. Even if it was physically possible to deport everyone you would not be able to keep them out. Even if you were able to keep them out the money spent would be greater than their cost. Remember immigrants pay a sales tax and possibly property taxes, that has to be taken into account when discussing how much they cost this country.
    Then let's give out work visas to those who want to work the fields.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #52
    Holy Crap!
    Red Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hawaii, USA
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 11:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,429

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?
    • Yes, focus on deporting dangerous criminals first.
    • No, this is the WH bypassing Congress to implement 'backdoor amnesty.'
    • Other

    Here is a link to Fox News report on the change in policy.


    "Special Report" On Backdoor Amnesty For Illegal Immigration? | RealClearPolitics
    This is nothing but Chicago politics. Obama thinks he is a ruler.
    Catch me if you can.

  3. #53
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,590
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyersfan314 View Post
    They don't get welfare. If they have children here then the children get welfare but it has to be distributed to someone who is legally in the US. This is one of the biggest misunderstanding on the issue of immigration.

    In addition we need illegal labor in this country. We can't afford to pay people a living, not minimum, but a living wage to pick our crops. The law should not be enforced blindly. People are not thinking practical about these things. Even if it was physically possible to deport everyone you would not be able to keep them out. Even if you were able to keep them out the money spent would be greater than their cost. Remember immigrants pay a sales tax and possibly property taxes, that has to be taken into account when discussing how much they cost this country.
    Absolutely wrong. 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.

    As for the sales tax and property tax (through rent, mostly) so what? That's pocket change. They don't pay state or federal income taxes. They can't. They don't have a legal tax I.D. number, only a stolen one.

  4. #54
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    They don't have to prosecute every illegal from Mexico in the first place. There's a provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act called "expedited removal". It allows ICE to basically put illegals on a bus and send them back to Mexico, without them having to appear before an immigration judge. Expedited removal can be applied to aliens who possess no entry documents, documents that are either fraudulently obtained or counterfeit, and aliens who have entered (or attempted to enter) the United States without having first been admitted by an immigration officer at a standard port of entry.

    The condition I highlighted above should be a "no-brainer" for applying the resource friendly expedited removal provision.
    Without going into all the details, it appears as though you are overstating where "expedited removal" can be used.

    Section 302 - Expedited Removal of Inadmissible Arriving Aliens

    THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY OF 1996 ("IIRIRA")

  5. #55
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,125
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Without going into all the details, it appears as though you are overstating where "expedited removal" can be used.

    Section 302 - Expedited Removal of Inadmissible Arriving Aliens

    THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY OF 1996 ("IIRIRA")
    I realize that Pete, and good catch... However, the DHS has expanded the scope of Expedited Removal on several occasions since 9/11, and I read this morning that it now includes "aliens who have entered (or attempted to enter) the United States without having first been admitted by an immigration officer at a standard port of entry."

    I just looked it up and did a bit more reading tonight, and I realize that I may in fact be in error. I found a description of that provision that states that it does not include Mexican nationals unless they have prior immigration violations or are involved in various criminal activity... If that is in fact the case, I think it would be a great idea to include Mexican nationals in the scope of Expedited Removal that way the law can be enforced without it costing the taxpayers so much damned money.

  6. #56
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    I realize that Pete, and good catch... However, the DHS has expanded the scope of Expedited Removal on several occasions since 9/11, and I read this morning that it now includes "aliens who have entered (or attempted to enter) the United States without having first been admitted by an immigration officer at a standard port of entry."

    I just looked it up and did a bit more reading tonight, and I realize that I may in fact be in error. I found a description of that provision that states that it does not include Mexican nationals unless they have prior immigration violations or are involved in various criminal activity... If that is in fact the case, I think it would be a great idea to include Mexican nationals in the scope of Expedited Removal that way the law can be enforced without it costing the taxpayers so much damned money.
    Are you going to admit:

    • This is a good policy change that makes good use of the resources available?
    • This policy is just one of many that make up the Dream Act and doesn't have anything to do with amnesty?
    • Prosecutorial Discretion which policy involves is well established law and supported by conservative Supreme Court Justices like Rehnquist and Scalia?
    • And you were misled by the Fox News Channel?

  7. #57
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,125
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Are you going to admit:

    • This is a good policy change that makes good use of the resources available?
    • This policy is just one of many that make up the Dream Act and doesn't have anything to do with amnesty?
    • Prosecutorial Discretion which policy involves is well established law and supported by conservative Supreme Court Justices like Rehnquist and Scalia?
    • And you were misled by the Fox News Channel?
    1. Immigration laws shouldn't be ignored, so no it's not a good policy change. Any policy that directs law enforcement not to deport illegal aliens when they have them in custody is just plain wrong. Like I said before, if they wanted to enact a policy that saved money and resources, they should have expanded the scope of Expedited Removal. That way they could save money and continue enforcing federal immigration laws.

    2. This policy was ripped right from the pages of the dream act and just like many are saying, it's in effect, back-door amnesty. The word "amnesty" means "a general pardon, esp for offenses against a government", and "pardon" means to "release (a person) from liability for an offense." That is precisely what the new policy does Pete.

    3. If you say so...

    4. How so Pete? I think you had better watch that report from Fox News again, because there was nothing misleading about it. They accurately laid out the facts surrounding the new policy and gave ample time to people on both sides of the issue to voice their opinion of it.

  8. #58
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    1. Immigration laws shouldn't be ignored, so no it's not a good policy change. Any policy that directs law enforcement not to deport illegal aliens when they have them in custody is just plain wrong. Like I said before, if they wanted to enact a policy that saved money and resources, they should have expanded the scope of Expedited Removal. That way they could save money and continue enforcing federal immigration laws.
    The Immigration laws are NOT being ignored, the policy is meant to deport the most violent case first, but it doesn't let anyone off the hook, Listen to the lady from CAP, she's correct.

    2. This policy was ripped right from the pages of the dream act and just like many are saying, it's in effect, back-door amnesty. The word "amnesty" means "a general pardon, esp for offenses against a government", and "pardon" means to "release (a person) from liability for an offense." That is precisely what the new policy does Pete.
    Yeah, so what? It's only one small portion of the Dream Act, it's not amnesty - it's Prosecutorial Discretion.

    3. If you say so...
    Prosecutorial Discretion Is Well-Established In U.S. Law

    Supreme Court: "An Agency's Decision Not To Prosecute Or Enforce ... Is A Decision Generally Committed To An Agency's Absolute Discretion." From the Supreme Court's decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney, written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist:
    This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 442 U. S. 123-124 (1979); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 418 U. S. 693 (1974);Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 386 U. S. 182 (1967); Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454 (1869). This recognition of the existence of discretion is attributable in no small part to the general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement.

    The reasons for this general unsuitability are many. First, an agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise. Thus, the agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency's overall policies, and, indeed, whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action at all. An agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing. The agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities. [Heckler v. Chaney, 3/20/85]
    Justice Scalia: "Prosecutorial Discretion" Is "A Special Province Of The Executive." From Justice Antonin Scalia's majority decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:
    Even in the criminal-law field, a selective prosecution claim is a rara avis. Because such claims invade a special province of the Executive -- its prosecutorial discretion -- we have emphasized that the standard for proving them is particularly demanding, requiring a criminal defendant to introduce "clear evidence" displacing the presumption that a prosecutor has acted lawfully. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 - 465 (1996). We have said:
    "This broad discretion [afforded the Executive] rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. Judicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor's motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry, and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government's enforcement policy. All of these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-608 (1985). [Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2/24/99]

    Link


    4. How so Pete? I think you had better watch that report from Fox News again, because there was nothing misleading about it. They accurately laid out the facts surrounding the new policy and gave ample time to people on both sides of the issue to voice their opinion of it.
    I've watch the video several times and the FNC hoodwinked you hook line and sinker. See above. If you were totally honest and evaluated it objectively (without partisan influence) I'm sure you would come to a different conclusion. But I know you will not do this. For the reasons above is why this wasn't covered on the nightly newscast of ABC, CBS and NBC. Only on the propaganda channel - Fox News Channel.

  9. #59
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,125
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I've watch the video several times and the FNC hoodwinked you hook line and sinker. See above. If you were totally honest and evaluated it objectively (without partisan influence) I'm sure you would come to a different conclusion. But I know you will not do this. For the reasons above is why this wasn't covered on the nightly newscast of ABC, CBS and NBC. Only on the propaganda channel - Fox News Channel.
    Name one claim made by Fox News that was false or deceptive in that report Pete... As a matter of fact, name as many as you want.

  10. #60
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Name one claim made by Fox News that was false or deceptive in that report Pete... As a matter of fact, name as many as you want.
    What they said was completely true, but they misled when they said it was like the Dream Act, but they didn't say it was only a small part of it. If I have a recipe for a cake and I decide I just want the eggs, that doesn't mean I want them for a cake. You can't make a cake with just eggs, you need all of the ingredients. The same thing here, you can't make amnesty or the Dream Act with this policy - you just can't. You've been had, Grim.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •