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 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 95

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

  1. #61
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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.
    I agree with you on one thing Pete... That the report given by Cathrine Herretage in that Fox News story was completely true. Only thing is, she didn't mislead anyone. She said that the new policy mirrored the Dream Act, not that the new policy IS the Dream Act...

    A person watching that report either knows what the Dream Act is, or they don't. They either know that it was about offering amnesty and a path to becoming a U.S. citizen to certain illegal immigrants, or they didn't. Take me for instance... I knew what the Dream Act was about and after seeing that report, I understood what the new policy took from the Dream Act, and what it didn't. I knew that they were taking the same group of illegals from the dream act, and telling immigration officials not to process them for deportation and let them go. They couldn't give them legal amnesty or a path to citizenship, because the Act didn't pass, so they did the only thing they could do... They ordered law enforcement not to deport them and let them go. That my friend is "back door" amnesty... So I wasn't "Had" Pete.

    Now take someone who only knew that the Dream Act was some kind of immigration reform, but didn't know the details... Could you explain to me Pete, exactly how they could have been misled? The report clearly explained what the policy would do, and since they didn't know the specifics of the Dream Act in the first place, how could not explaining the differences between the two be deceptive? I mean how could a person be misled into believing the new policy is the same as something that they know nothing about?

    Not explaining the differences between the 2 wasn't deceptive because it just wasn't necessary. They explained in great detail what the new policy says and does, and the fact that it was taken from the language used in the Dream Act, simply means that it was the closest they could come to enacting the dream act without congressional support.

    Sorry Pete, but calling that report "deceptive" just doesn't fly. The fact that the internet isn't exploding with attacks and critisisms of Fox News by the left, should have told you that.

  2. #62
    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 agree with you on one thing Pete... That the report given by Cathrine Herretage in that Fox News story was completely true. Only thing is, she didn't mislead anyone. She said that the new policy mirrored the Dream Act, not that the new policy IS the Dream Act...

    A person watching that report either knows what the Dream Act is, or they don't. They either know that it was about offering amnesty and a path to becoming a U.S. citizen to certain illegal immigrants, or they didn't. Take me for instance... I knew what the Dream Act was about and after seeing that report, I understood what the new policy took from the Dream Act, and what it didn't. I knew that they were taking the same group of illegals from the dream act, and telling immigration officials not to process them for deportation and let them go. They couldn't give them legal amnesty or a path to citizenship, because the Act didn't pass, so they did the only thing they could do... They ordered law enforcement not to deport them and let them go. That my friend is "back door" amnesty... So I wasn't "Had" Pete.

    Now take someone who only knew that the Dream Act was some kind of immigration reform, but didn't know the details... Could you explain to me Pete, exactly how they could have been misled? The report clearly explained what the policy would do, and since they didn't know the specifics of the Dream Act in the first place, how could not explaining the differences between the two be deceptive? I mean how could a person be misled into believing the new policy is the same as something that they know nothing about?

    Not explaining the differences between the 2 wasn't deceptive because it just wasn't necessary. They explained in great detail what the new policy says and does, and the fact that it was taken from the language used in the Dream Act, simply means that it was the closest they could come to enacting the dream act without congressional support.

    Sorry Pete, but calling that report "deceptive" just doesn't fly. The fact that the internet isn't exploding with attacks and critisisms of Fox News by the left, should have told you that.
    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????

  3. #63
    Student Flyersfan314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    10-27-12 @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    232

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

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    The states certainly do this.

    They should not do this. The federal government does not do this.

    Then let's give out work visas to those who want to work the fields.
    I want that to happen. Problem is the politics of this country have taken our economy hostage. I don't want to pay more for food than I am paying. Then we have more people on food stamps.

  4. #64
    Student Flyersfan314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    10-27-12 @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    232

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #65
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyersfan314 View Post
    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.
    they get it illegally.......which begs the question: why hasn't california enforced their rules?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  6. #66
    Student Flyersfan314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    10-27-12 @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    232

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

    There is too much emotion in this topic. Thinking with your heart is as bad as thinking with your penis. We can't deport everybody, and if we could we could not keep them out. We should stop them from coming to our schools if they are illegal and they should not receive licenses. We should be approving work visas that don't require immigrants be paid more then they are getting now.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyersfan314 View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #68
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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????
    No it doesn't Pete... It says right in the letter issued by the Obama administration that:

    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.
    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 detain them or process them for deportation... In other words, just let them go.
    Last edited by Grim17; 08-25-11 at 10:49 PM.

  9. #69
    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
    No it doesn't Pete... It says right in the letter issued by the Obama administration that:



    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 detain them or process them for deportation... In other words, just let them go.
    Why are you dishonest when you post **** like this, Grim? Why don't you post the whole paragraph???

  10. #70
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Why are you dishonest when you post **** like this, Grim? Why don't you post the whole paragraph???
    What? Are you saying that I cherry picked that paragraph and that they are not going to let illegal aliens go?

    Here's what follows what I posted:

    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.
    What now Pete?

    You know damned well what that means, so don't accuse me of being dishonest.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •