• 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
Flyersfan314 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Then let's give out work visas to those who want to work the fields.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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")
 
pbrauer said:
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")
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
pbrauer said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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????
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 it illegally.......which begs the question: why hasn't california enforced their rules?
 
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.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
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...

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.
 
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...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why are you dishonest when you post **** like this, Grim? Why don't you post the whole paragraph???:roll:
 
pbrauer said:
Why are you dishonest when you post **** like this, Grim? Why don't you post the whole paragraph???:roll:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

What now Pete?

You know damned well what that means, so don't accuse me of being dishonest.
 
Grim17 said:
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:



What now Pete?

You know damned well what that means, so don't accuse me of being dishonest.
Click to expand...
Here is the whole paragraph, why didn't you post it or provide a link to the source? In my opinion you were be dishonest.


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. ICE must prioritize the use ofits 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.
Click to expand...
You have a right to your opinion as to what this change in policy really means, but when you cherry pick (your words) that's dishonesty. You lose when you pull crap like this.
 
pbrauer said:
Here is the whole paragraph, why didn't you post it or provide a link to the source? In my opinion you were be dishonest.



You have a right to your opinion as to what this change in policy really means, but when you cherry pick (your words) that's dishonesty. You lose when you pull crap like this.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with you saying the following:

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...


That paragraph and those that followed were in direct response to you asking me where it states that they would let anyone go... Now in your typical dishonesty, you make it about WHY they will let people go.

You are the most dishonest person by far on this forum Pete... What's so sad about it is, you feel absolutely no shame what so ever about it.
 
Grim17 said:
What does that have to do with you saying the following:




That paragraph and those that followed were in direct response to you asking me where it states that they would let anyone go... Now in your typical dishonesty, you make it about WHY they will let people go.

You are the most dishonest person by far on this forum Pete... What's so sad about it is, you feel absolutely no shame what so ever about it.
Click to expand...
:lamo I'm not about getting into a pissing match over this, but it was YOU who posted a quote from a document and didn't provide a link to it and I think we both know why.
 
pbrauer said:
:lamo I'm not about getting into a pissing match over this, but it was YOU who posted a quote from a document and didn't provide a link to it and I think we both know why.
Click to expand...

So Pete, are you satisfied that the new policy will let illegal aliens go?

Or was that whole misdirection of yours done so you wouldn't have to address it?
 
Grim17 said:
So Pete, are you satisfied that the new policy will let illegal aliens go?

Or was that whole misdirection of yours done so you wouldn't have to address it?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom