AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

Zyphlin said:

Yo'ure leaving out a bit of informatoin.

The DREAM Act, suggested by Mark Rubio and endorsed by Mitt Romney follows proper legislative process.

Obama's actions completely jump that.

They are similar in their ends perhaps but their means are significantly different. One follows the traditional and typical manner of properly enabling such a thing. The other expands the Executive Branches power even further then it already is and does it on the power of only one branch of government, thus removing some checks and balances.

So no, you're wrong in saying its "no different"

Click to expand...

Didn't leave it out at all. I did state in my post that Obama's work permit measure would be by Executive Order versus Reagan's signing amnesty into law via a bill from Congress.

I do understand that process matters, but do you really think if Romney were to win the presidency wouldn't incorporate this very measure into immigration law? I think not! But again, process does matter. I'd rather see such a measure go through congressional channels as well, but the Democrats and Pres. Obama tried that and Congress rejected it. But now that a prominent Hispanic politician who happens to be the front runner for the GOP VP nomination, suddenly this route to allowing young Hispanics who were brought here by their parents and know no other country as their homeland, suddenly the GOP presidential nominee with "consider looking into it"?

It's very doubtful the Mitt Romney would have considered this measure on his own. For him just as with Pres. Obama, this is a carrot thrown in the direction of the Hispanic vote....plain and simple. I don't disagree with it, however.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Of course not, but are the kids punished for the parents choice to break the law?
No.

If anything, they were under duress.

Click to expand...

Yes they are "punished" in that they lose all access to what the ill-gotten gains provided to them. In this case, the children aren't being punished by being deported, but losing the access to ill-gotten gains.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I understand that, regardless though, children didn't make the call, to break the law.
Their parents did.

If these, now adults, are good citizens, doing everything else right.
Why deport them?

It serves no purpose.

Click to expand...

Now that they are adults they are making the called to break the law. Illegals are not citizens, they are citizens of the countries they are from.

Children who come here, tend to become proficient in English, even if their parents aren't.
Many of them, have little to no connection with their home country, if they came here as children.
Sending them back, makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Children of immigrations both legal and illegal tend to be bi-lingual,

Yes it does make sense sending them back since they are here illegally. Allowing illegals to stay just because their parents brought them over only sends the message that you should bring in more kids and that they kids don't even have to be legal to stay here. This makes illegal immigration even worse. It amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire and expecting it to help put it out.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I agree with this.
Not a fan of executive orders.

This should be done through legislative means and those who are here illegally and were adults, should have something done.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, this isn't being done by executive order. Granted, a rose by any other name....

Nor, as some have suggested, is it illegal. The executive always has discretion in how a policy is implemented. In this case, the funds and mechanisms the president has to combat illegal immigration are totally insufficient to address the problem categorically, so he has to prioritize the way he approaches it. To that end, over the last few years Obama has concentrated the administration's efforts on deporting illegals with criminal records. I don't recall any Republicans objecting to that policy decision as being a breach of separation of powers.

In this instance he has decided to shift resources away from deporting illegals who were brought here as children. Naturally that will free up resources to address other illegals.

Clearly he is just pandering evangelicals! :lol:

[WASHINGTON, DC — Dr. Richard Land, a top conservative evangelical leader, came out strongly in favor of President Obama’s new immigration policy today, slamming Republicans who would call the move “amnesty.”
STRASSER: I know you were talking about the idea of calling it amnesty and you were saying it isn’t amnesty because…

LAND: They haven’t done anything wrong. In order to get amnesty, you’ve got to have done something wrong. These young people are innocent. They haven’t done anything wrong. To me, this is the low-lying fruit of immigration reform. This ought to be something we can all unite around. They have to have been under 16 when they got here, they got to be under 30. He’s not granting citizenship, he’s granting a pathway to legal status. He’s making it so they’re protected from being deported and they can get on with their lives and their education with serving in the military. Investing themselves in our nation and our nation’s future. Who can be against that?

KEYES: What’s your reaction to people who call this amnesty?

LAND: They need a course in remedial English. It’s not amnesty.

STRASSER: Do you have any advice?

LAND: Yeah, I would say to the Romney campaign, this is the right thing to do. You should applaud the president for doing the right thing and encourage Congress to follow up by codifying it into law.
Top Conservative Evangelical Leader Supports New Obama Immigration Policy, Urges GOP To 'Applaud The President' | ThinkProgress

Click to expand...

J/K. The timing of this certainly suggests that it's being done to curry favor with hispanic voters, but OTOH, it is totally consistent with Obama's long-standing support of the DREAM Act. My only question is, why didn't he do it sooner? In any case, I think it's the right thing to do and I think it will help Obama in the election.

Objective Voice said:

I do understand that process matters, but do you really think if Romney were to win the presidency wouldn't incorporate this very measure into immigration law? I think not! But again, process does matter. I'd rather see such a measure go through congressional channels as well, but the Democrats and Pres. Obama tried that and Congress rejected it.

Click to expand...

So process matters...unless the process doesn't go the way you want it, so then **** process?

Zyphlin said:

Yep, Reagan granted amnesty. There's really no two ways around it.

However, that doesn't make the notion that, "OMG they supported it then 20+ years ago so ALL OF THEM, even those who couldn't even vote for Reagan back then, are hypocrites now for opposing it", any less idiotic.

Click to expand...

I agree with that

Reagan did grant amnesty, with the understanding in part that there was going to be action taken to curtail future illegal immigration. Not shockingly, many of that curtailing action didn't come to fruition.

Click to expand...

Reagan was a politician. I seriously doubt he actually believed that anything would be done to curtail future illegal immigration. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that pouring gasoline on a fire doesn't put it out but only make it worse.If they were serious about cracking down on illegal immigration they most certainly do not need any amnesty to do it.

clownboy said:

Yes they are "punished" in that they lose all access to what the ill-gotten gains provided to them. In this case, the children aren't being punished by being deported, but losing the access to ill-gotten gains.

Click to expand...

Except that isn't true.
You can't take away some benefits of ill gotten gains.

The point is, many of these people were kids, were brought over as kids and have lived the majority of their lives as Americans.
Now, because their place of birth is different and their parents broke the law, they must now lose the ability to reside in the U.S.

I mean, I get the whole problem with general illegal immigration, but don't you think you're taking it a bit too far, by throwing out people, who are essentially Americans.
It's dumb and you're going to far, for no practical reason.

Zyphlin said:

So process matters...unless the process doesn't go the way you want it, so then **** process?

Click to expand...

Did you voice concern about the process when Obama was concentrating resources on deporting undocumented aliens with criminal records ... and thus obviously shifting resources away from deporting those without criminal records?

AdamT said:

Just to be clear, this isn't being done by executive order. Granted, a rose by any other name....

Nor, as some have suggested, is it illegal. The executive always has discretion in how a policy is implemented. In this case, the funds and mechanisms the president has to combat illegal immigration are totally insufficient to address the problem categorically, so he has to prioritize the way he approaches it. To that end, over the last few years Obama has concentrated the administration's efforts on deporting illegals with criminal records. I don't recall any Republicans objecting to that policy decision as being a breach of separation of powers.

In this instance he has decided to shift resources away from deporting illegals who were brought here as children. Naturally that will free up resources to address other illegals.

Clearly he is just pandering evangelicals! :lol:



J/K. The timing of this certainly suggests that it's being done to curry favor with hispanic voters, but OTOH, it is totally consistent with Obama's long-standing support of the DREAM Act. My only question is, why didn't he do it sooner? In any case, I think it's the right thing to do and I think it will help Obama in the election.

Click to expand...

Bleh, I believe it's an electioneering tool.
To get votes.

To me, it doesn't matter, because sometimes, these things make practical sense.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Bleh, I believe it's an electioneering tool.
To get votes.

To me, it doesn't matter, because sometimes, these things make practical sense.

Click to expand...

Meh, it's both. He needs the hispanic vote, but he has been pushing for the DREAM Act forever.

Zyphlin said:

So process matters...unless the process doesn't go the way you want it, so then **** process?

Click to expand...

President's have used Executive Orders to get around issues they couldn't get passed through Congress for a long time. I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but it's an executive privlilege that only the President enjoys; his perogative when to use it and for whatever reason. The only thing WE, THE PEOPLE have to be somewhat thankful for in this regard is such orders are temporary in nature....unless through such usage the congressional leadership can be convinced to write such a measure into a bill and it becomes law.

:shrug:

Objective Voice said:

President's have used Executive Orders to get around issues they couldn't get passed through Congress for a long time in order I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but is part of executive privlilege that only the President enjoys; his perogative when to use it and for whatever reason. The only thing WE, THE PEOPLE have to be somewhat thankful for is such orders are temporary in nature....unless through such usage the congressional leadership can be convinced to write such a measure into a bill and it becomes law.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Again, there is no executive order here.

Zyphlin said:

So process matters...unless the process doesn't go the way you want it, so then **** process?

Click to expand...

Also know as "The ends justify the means" in liberal circles.

Objective Voice said:

Didn't leave it out at all. I did state in my post that Obama's work permit measure would be by Executive Order versus Reagan's signing amnesty into law via a bill from Congress.

Click to expand...

Fair enough

Objective Voice said:

I do understand that process matters, but do you really think if Romney were to win the presidency wouldn't incorporate this very measure into immigration law? I think not! But again, process does matter. I'd rather see such a measure go through congressional channels as well, but the Democrats and Pres. Obama tried that and Congress rejected it. But now that a prominent Hispanic politician who happens to be the front runner for the GOP VP nomination, suddenly this route to allowing young Hispanics who were brought here by their parents and know no other country as their homeland, suddenly the GOP presidential nominee with "consider looking into it"?

It's very doubtful the Mitt Romney would have considered this measure on his own. For him just as with Pres. Obama, this is a carrot thrown in the direction of the Hispanic vote....plain and simple. I don't disagree with it, however.

Click to expand...

Exactly, Romney (and Rubio) have been forced into a corner by a cynical election season ploy. Rubios answer is the best thus far, and shows some great political acumen. He basically says it's sounds like a good thing but he cannot endorse the absolutely bad way it is being done.

I don't expect that Romney would be any different on the illegal issue than former President Bush - horrid. So, on that issue Obama and Romney are really a wash. Those on the right will just have to make the choice at election based upon other differences, other factors (just as they did with Bush whom we always knew was weak on the issue). Also, just as in the Bush years, the right will have to maintain our attention on congress to hold the line.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Except that isn't true.
You can't take away some benefits of ill gotten gains.

The point is, many of these people were kids, were brought over as kids and have lived the majority of their lives as Americans.
Now, because their place of birth is different and their parents broke the law, they must now lose the ability to reside in the U.S.

I mean, I get the whole problem with general illegal immigration, but don't you think you're taking it a bit too far, by throwing out people, who are essentially Americans.
It's dumb and you're going to far, for no practical reason.

Click to expand...

The president doesn't have the authority to stop enforcing a law, just because he doesn't like it.

AdamT said:

Did you voice concern about the process when Obama was concentrating resources on deporting undocumented aliens with criminal records ... and thus obviously shifting resources away from deporting those without criminal records?

Click to expand...

Actually, yes. While I am in favor of getting rid of illegals aliens that have criminal records, I was against essentially aiming efforts in such a way that those who do not have a criminal record were ignored especially ones who were easily identifiable. If you're here illegally and we know you're here illegally you should be getting the boot. If you want to focus more on one area or another that's one thing. However, giving carte blanche freedom of having your criminal action ignored and even beyond that being given a benefit of the state is not simply "shifting concentration". It's erasing concentration and its basically stating "I know this is against the law, however as the executive I'm simply going to choose not to enforce the law."

I've expressed the same issue with regards to fedreal marijuana laws. I'm in favor of marijuana being legalized. I think that the amount we spend on stopping people from doing something like that is RIDICULOUS. That said...it's still federal law right now and I disagree with any president just telling people "don't enforce the law". I think there's a large danger there.

Blue Laws, IE things not enforced for nearly 50+ years and have simply not been taken off the books, is one thing. However, the executive branch simply ignoring the legislative branches laws because it doesn't agree with it on things that were just within the past few years active is a different ball of wax regardless of whose doing it.

In the post I was responding to in the one you quoted me, the individual suggested that the President was okay in doing this because the Congress wouldn't pass the laws he wanted. To me that's problematic because it's basically showing the process and the notion of checks and balances as a sham and further empowers the Executive Branch beyond what it's already been empowered with; basically showing that the attempt to work through the proper process of congress is nothing but a dog and pony show and if the executive doesn't get its way then it'll just do it anyways.

AdamT said:

Again, there is no executive order here.

Click to expand...

Yet...

"I think the action that the President took today makes it more difficult to reach that long term solution because an executive order is, of course, just a short term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents," Romney said. He didn't say whether he would seek the new rule's reversal.

"If I'm president, we'll do our very best to have that kind of long term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the actions of their parents," the former Massachusetts governor added.

Click to expand...

Again, it's very likely Mitt Romney would do the exact same thing only via a bill from Congress.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Except that isn't true.
You can't take away some benefits of ill gotten gains.

Click to expand...

But all future benefit from those illegal gains is indeed taken away.

Harry Guerrilla said:

The point is, many of these people were kids, were brought over as kids and have lived the majority of their lives as Americans.
Now, because their place of birth is different and their parents broke the law, they must now lose the ability to reside in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Yes, that last at least is precisely the point. They, and their parents, are here illegally and now they must lose their ability to reside in the US.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I mean, I get the whole problem with general illegal immigration, but don't you think you're taking it a bit too far, by throwing out people, who are essentially Americans.
It's dumb and you're going to far, for no practical reason.

Click to expand...

No, because they are not "essentially Americans". They are beneficiaries of their parents' crime who are losing that benefit because we finally caught them and decided to act upon it.

The practical reason is to discourage the behavior going forward. Just as the purpose of the consequences of most criminal law is deterrent.

In terms of concentrating resources...that's not really what this is.

Say the city wanted concentrate resources in terms of law enforcement by focusing more on people running red lights then speeding. They put far more cops watching intersectoins then long stretches of road, they use traffic camers at red lights instead of heavy traffic areas, and other such things. However, they likely still have at least some cops doing speed checks and at the very least cops are still going to stop someone that goes zooming past them at a ridiculous speed.

What they don't do is basically say "If you see someone going 20 over, don't stop them. Actually, more than that, we're going to go ahead and give people fully loaded EZpasses so they can speed even easier without having to worry about stopping at toll booths".

This isn't reconcentrating resources. Its telling an entire group of people violating the law that we're just going to completely and utterly ignore you in terms of legality and even more than that we're going to give you things to make it even easier for you while you violate the law.

Objective Voice said:

Again, it's very likely Mitt Romney would do the exact same thing only via a bill from Congress.

Click to expand...

No.

It's very likely Mitt would try to do something like it.

Remember, Bush also TRIED to get a massive immigration bill with pseudo-amnesty passed. Remember, it didn't happen.

Presidents are not Kings. It's likely mitt would try to do something like this. I'd say its far from likely that he'd succeed.

Zyphlin said:

In terms of concentrating resources...that's not really what this is.

Say the city wanted concentrate resources in terms of law enforcement by focusing more on people running red lights then speeding. They put far more cops watching intersectoins then long stretches of road, they use traffic camers at red lights instead of heavy traffic areas, and other such things. However, they likely still have at least some cops doing speed checks and at the very least cops are still going to stop someone that goes zooming past them at a ridiculous speed.

What they don't do is basically say "If you see someone going 20 over, don't stop them. Actually, more than that, we're going to go ahead and give people fully loaded EZpasses so they can speed even easier without having to worry about stopping at toll booths".

This isn't reconcentrating resources. Its telling an entire group of people violating the law that we're just going to completely and utterly ignore you in terms of legality and even more than that we're going to give you things to make it even easier for you while you violate the law.

Click to expand...

Your right, it is not necessarily re concentrating resources, but something different. Here is my analogy, a cop pulls you over for speeding right before the speed limit sign changes, you are cooperative, and he decides to give you a warning. Happens all the time, because it is practical and the cop realizes while the speeder broke the law sometimes discretion needs to be involved, for the good of the public.

Illegal Immigration needs to be addressed, AFTER we close off the borders with the returning military from the middle east. That has to be done first.

Samhain said:

Reagan elected 1980
Reagan elected 1984
Immigration amnesty passes both houses of Congress and signed 1986.

Yep, voted twice in support of something that happened after the fact. And again, an EO doesn't equal a bill that passes both houses and signed into law.

Click to expand...

Not to mention, a bipartisan bill that first passed through a Democrat controlled House. But yeah, it's probably all Reagan's fault.

That bill also made it illegal to hire someone without documentation with the introduction of the I-9 form. Another subtle difference is that, since the bill made criminal the hiring of illegals, real people's livelihoods, both the employers and employees, were going to be effected. Amnesty sort of makes sense in that situation, saying that "While we haven't been enforcing this before and let you get cozy, we're shutting down the pipe NOW." Sort of a bass-ackwards habeus corpus thing.

Prof. Peabody said:

If she was born in the U.S. she is a citizen and can go to college. The immigration status of her parents is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

My mistake that was a typo is should have read "brought into the US illegally".....

Connery said:

My mistake that was a typo is should have read "brought into the US illegally".....

Click to expand...

Then she should have a heck of a leg up in the legal immigration process. She knows english, is US educated and should have no problem getting sponsorship and a job. She can blame her parents for putting her in this position and the assholes here that made her parents think they wouldn't be caught, or that nothing would happen when they were.

Btw, if they had pulled the same stunt with Brazil, coming illegally from some other country, and got caught, what would happen? The truth is most countries have the same policy, some even stricter. Just finished watching some episodic show from New Zealand dealing with their customs and border agents. They deport the whole family and then sort it out when they try to apply for entry the next time. Same goes for the UK.