• 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!

AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

I already supplied the cite to the Constitution. Did you want an actual quote?

The Kansas City Star Opinion page is NOT the Constitution, though, I certainly can see where you'd think it was.
 
And where is the money supposed to come from to gather them all up? It would take overtime, multiple shifts, more people, more transportaion, and more gas to gather and transport them. Let alone the costs of building and manning this so called "wall" conservatives want. There are also some conservatives that believe they should be jailed first before being sent back.

Where is that money going to come from? More borrowing from China?

Sounds like a perfect jobs program.
 
The Kansas City Star Opinion page is NOT the Constitution, though, I certainly can see where you'd think it was.

So youre not aware that "Article 2" refers to the Constitution?
 
Why don't you explain how it applies here.

Does it really need explanation? Apparently....

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President may "grant reprieves and pardons." So, what exactly is a reprieve? And what types of pardons can the President grant?


A reprieve is merely a temporary postponement of a criminal sentence. For example, the president may decide to delay the death penalty for an individual. However, a reprieve does not relieve the individual from serving the sentence. So, if the individual was sentenced to the death penalty he or she would still receive the death penalty at some later point (unless the president actually grants a pardon to the individual).

Presidential Pardons
 
Except that is not what he has done. And you know it.
 
It's exactly what he's done: granted a temporary reprieve from deportation.

The info you provide on reprieve talks about criminal. Isn't being an illegal alien in the US (first time) a civil crime?
Or are you finally admitting illegal aliens are criminals?
 
The info you provide on reprieve talks about criminal. Isn't being an illegal alien in the US (first time) a civil crime?
Or are you finally admitting illegal aliens are criminals?

It can be criminal or not, depending on whether original entry was lawful.
 
It can be criminal or not, depending on whether original entry was lawful.

If a non citizen enters the US through lawful means, they are not illegal. Your statement makes no sense.
 
If a non citizen enters the US through lawful means, they are not illegal. Your statement makes no sense.

If someone enters lawfully but overstays their visa, then they are here illegally but it is not a criminal violation. What is criminal is entering without permission.

Either way, Article II doesn't specify that a reprieve is limited to criminal matters.
 
It seems that the AZ immigration decision has given further support to Obama's policy:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See §1227. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. See Brief for Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as Amici Curiae 8–13 (hereinafter Brief for Former INS Commissioners).

…Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.
 
I never said it did. Just pointing out that prices will indeed increase and the labor cost isn't just a small fraction of the costs for farmers.

This may be true for certain crops requiring more manual labor than others. But we pay lower food bills and make up the difference in extra state benefits for these people.
 
Your lord and savior Reagan did it. Conservatives really are hypocrites.
This is what annoys me, the thought that since a conservative did it, that we agree with it. It is simply untrue.

Take Romney and Obama for example. Neither of them have a plan I 100% agree with but those are the choices available. Which ever one I choose is not a 100% endorsement of every single one of their policies, its just me saying if I am going to get punched in the face or stomach, I choose stomach.

I oppose any policy that allows people to circumvent our legal immigration system regardless of which president it was.
 
Last edited:
If someone enters lawfully but overstays their visa, then they are here illegally but it is not a criminal violation. What is criminal is entering without permission.

That's true, though it shouldn't be. The only penalties are civil and deportation (with the chance of future visa denial). Should be, overstay for longer than 3 months, it's a criminal violation.
 
It seems that the AZ immigration decision has given further support to Obama's policy:

maybe so, misguided as it is. So tell me, will the feds start paying the costs States incurr when dealing with illegal aliens? Should hospitials send the bill to the feds, should the State bill the feds for the education of illegal aliens? It is a federal issue to deal with, not a State issue.
 
maybe so, misguided as it is. So tell me, will the feds start paying the costs States incurr when dealing with illegal aliens? Should hospitials send the bill to the feds, should the State bill the feds for the education of illegal aliens? It is a federal issue to deal with, not a State issue.

I think that the Feds should pay more to states with bigger immigration issues. As a rule the federal government makes money from illegals because many pay payroll taxes but can't collect benefits. The states, OTOH, end up losing money. The Feds should make up the difference.
 
I think that the Feds should pay more to states with bigger immigration issues. As a rule the federal government makes money from illegals because many pay payroll taxes but can't collect benefits. The states, OTOH, end up losing money. The Feds should make up the difference.

Good God, we finally agreed on something. I see the sky falling. :lol:

It would be good to see but the divide in Washington, this won't happen. I think States like AZ should push the issue now that the SC has ruled.
 
Back
Top Bottom