Obama acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million

sangha · Nov 27, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I wonder if somebody could provide a reasoned rationale for why a pathway to citizenship should be offered to people who have thumbed their noses at our laws and have benefitted greatly at our expense while others respect and obey our laws as they patiently wait for admission to this country?

A) Because it's what the american people want

B) Because it benefits our nation

Can anybody tell me how amnesty for millions of illegals will not affect corporate behavior? Why should an employer who is mandated to provide Obamacare for his/her employees keep those employees when he can lay off his blue collar workers and replace with illegals who presumably won't be eligible for Obamacare? How can millions of legalized illegals not make our more unemployable Americans even more hard core unemployable?

Under a pathway to citizenship, immigrants who have not gained citizenship would remain ineligible for employment and business that hired them would continue to be subject to fines. IOW, a path to citizenship provides no incentive for business to hire undocumented aliens.

sangha · Nov 27, 2014

jwzg said:
What exactly is not working?

The immigration system

jwzg · Nov 27, 2014

sangha said:
The immigration system

That's a pretty broad answer. By the way, I've spent a considerable amount of time overseas, and my wife is an immigrant that went through the proper channels after we were married, so I'm pretty familiar with the topic.

Conservative · Nov 27, 2014

sangha said:
A) Because it's what the american people want

B) Because it benefits our nation

Under a pathway to citizenship, immigrants who have not gained citizenship would remain ineligible for employment and business that hired them would continue to be subject to fines. IOW, a path to citizenship provides no incentive for business to hire undocumented aliens.

So in other words it is ok to break the laws of this land by entering this country illegally? Ever tried to enter another country illegally? Because the law isn't working to your satisfaction it apparently is ok to break it, enter the country illegally, take up residency here, take advantage of all this country has to offer and have your existence taken care of by the American taxpayer?

jwzg · Nov 27, 2014

Conservative said:
So in other words it is ok to break the laws of this land by entering this country illegally? Ever tried to enter another country illegally? Because the law isn't working to your satisfaction it apparently is ok to break it, enter the country illegally, take up residency here, take advantage of all this country has to offer and have your existence taken care of by the American taxpayer?

Which is the difference between a democracy and a republic. If majority of people want your house, I guess it's OK because they are the majority. :sigh:

Conservative · Nov 27, 2014

jwzg said:
Which is the difference between a democracy and a republic. If majority of people want your house, I guess it's OK because they are the majority. :sigh:

Think the majority will take your house because they want it? What exactly does that have to do with breaking existing laws because they don't suit a particular agenda?

jwzg · Nov 27, 2014

Conservative said:
Think the majority will take your house because they want it? What exactly does that have to do with breaking existing laws because they don't suit a particular agenda?

In a democracy, there is no law to protect you...only the will of the majority. Unfortunately too many people have been taught to believe that the U.S. is a Democracy and that if they don't like the law, its OK to break it if the majority approves.

That's what makes this executive action so scary.

Hey, let's see if we can turn Texas into California.

Conservative · Nov 27, 2014

jwzg said:
In a democracy, there is no law to protect you...only the will of the majority. Unfortunately too many people have been taught to believe that the U.S. is a Democracy and that if they don't like the law, its OK to break it if the majority approves.

That's what makes this executive action so scary.

Hey, let's see if we can turn Texas into California.

Based upon the last election those who want to turn TX into California lost ground. We aren't a true democracy, we are a Representative Democracy and a country of laws, regardless of what liberals tell us. Seems liberals only want to enforce the laws they agree with. There are many laws I disagree with but honor them.

jwzg · Nov 27, 2014

Conservative said:
Based upon the last election those who want to turn TX into California lost ground. We aren't a true democracy, we are a Representative Democracy and a country of laws, regardless of what liberals tell us. Seems liberals only want to enforce the laws they agree with. There are many laws I disagree with but honor them.

Yup...but if 4 million illegals get amnesty and eventual citizenship, say goodbye to red Tejas.

j-mac · Nov 27, 2014

sangha said:
A) Because it's what the american people want...

Except that the overwhelming majority did NOT want it done the way Obama just did it...

B) Because it benefits our nation

That is simply untrue.

Under a pathway to citizenship, immigrants who have not gained citizenship would remain ineligible for employment and business that hired them would continue to be subject to fines. IOW, a path to citizenship provides no incentive for business to hire undocumented aliens

And makes the current soft job market worse by introducing 5 million more low skilled into it...Yeah, doesn't sound like a benefit for Americans....Face it, it was a bald faced political move....The new congress will smack his hands....

sangha · Nov 27, 2014

jwzg said:
That's a pretty broad answer.

It's a pretty big problem

By the way, I've spent a considerable amount of time overseas, and my wife is an immigrant that went through the proper channels after we were married, so I'm pretty familiar with the topic.

I'm glad to hear that. Srsly

sangha · Nov 27, 2014

Conservative said:
So in other words it is ok to break the laws of this land by entering this country illegally? Ever tried to enter another country illegally? Because the law isn't working to your satisfaction it apparently is ok to break it, enter the country illegally, take up residency here, take advantage of all this country has to offer and have your existence taken care of by the American taxpayer?

Many undocumented aliens entered the country legally and then overstayed on their visa, which is not a crime.

sangha · Nov 27, 2014

j-mac said:
Except that the overwhelming majority did NOT want it done the way Obama just did it...

But they want it done

That is simply untrue.

It is absolutely true

And makes the current soft job market worse by introducing 5 million more low skilled into it...Yeah, doesn't sound like a benefit for Americans....Face it, it was a bald faced political move....The new congress will smack his hands....

Undocumented aliens are ineligible for work authorization. Legal immigration benefits the economy

Conservative · Nov 27, 2014

sangha said:
Many undocumented aliens entered the country legally and then overstayed on their visa, which is not a crime.

Really? Guess the law is what you want to make it when you want to make it. Overstaying their visa is indeed a crime.

AJiveMan · Nov 28, 2014

timslash said:
Obama Announces Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy - NBC News

Obama acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million - The Washington Post

Well, our dear Mr. President still going his own way, which only he can understand.

He also said that majority of Americans supports immigration policy. WHAT?! Hmm, when the "majority" become "7 states"?

Also, Fed announced an end to Quantitative Easing BO increased the labor force for low wage jobs by 8%.
And i think 5 mln immigrants will provoke decreasing again! 5 mln of low-qualified workers will also provoke sad situation not only with workplaces!

Well, let's wait and see!
View attachment 67176193

Doesn't do any good to keep sending illegals back or deporting them, isn't there a statistic that says most sent back or deported come back, again and again? Congress needs to come up with a immigration bill, but they won't touch it because they're afraid of their constituents, if the favor or don't favor.

AJiveMan · Nov 28, 2014

Conservative said:
Really? Guess the law is what you want to make it when you want to make it. Overstaying their visa is indeed a crime.

How is that done? I knew a woman from the UK that was here for 15 years. The family living next door to me has been here for 14 years. How does one over stay a visa? Or, do people just pay attorneys to stay here?

cabse5 · Nov 28, 2014

Gaius46 said:
I believe you're incorrect as to what an EO is. An EO as I understand is a directive from the president to agencies that report to him on what he wants them to do. It is roughly equivalent to an order from a boss to an underling. Roughly because EOs carry the force of law.

I've pointed out before that presidents historically have significant leeway in deciding what laws to enforce. It's always been that way because they don't have unlimited manpower and money to enforce every law law on the books. Police departments have the same leeway. So do mayors, governors and prosecutors. That's reality.

Additionally congress gave the president, though his attorney general legal authority to give illegal immigrants work visas - I've quoted the relevant statute somewhere in this thread. Not only does that give the president the legal authority to do what he's doing it's an obvious admission on Congress' part that the President doesn't necessarily have to deport everyone who's here illegally.

So tell me, what Immigration Reform law(s) has BO's EO on Immigration Reform clarified or directed his 'underlings' to enforce or not enforce?

cabse5 · Nov 28, 2014

sangha said:
1) The issue isn't so much between the two houses of congress as it is between the right and everyone else. The right adamantly refuses to pass a bill that includes a "path to citizenship" (aka "amnesty") even though a majority of americans (and a number of republicans in congress) support one. The House (dominated by the right) won't consider a bill that includes one and the Senate (dominated by moderates and liberals) won't consider a bill that does not include one... 4, 5, & 6) There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama's actions. The immigration laws on the books, passed by Congress, grant various Federal officers (President, AG, Sec'y of DHS) the authority to do the things they have done.

No laws are being written by Obama. Laws are being followed and adhered to....

If you wish to debate, I'll gladly debate. I you wish to spin, I'll say bye bye. BTW, which previous Immigration Reform law(s) is BO clarifying or directing his 'underlings' to enforce or not enforce with his EO on immigration? Maybe it's a clarification or even a refusal to prosecute the law that states children of undocumenteds that are born in the US become US citizens? If BO refuses to prosecute that law, you do realize children of undocumenteds born in the US WOULD NOT automatically become US citizens, don't you (sometimes you have to resort to concrete thinking to get through)? No..that isn't correct because that law didn't deal with the PARENTS of children of undocumenteds born in the US as BO's EO did. The immigration law BO refers to with his EO on immigration is actually just BO's own sense of social justice.

cabse5 · Nov 28, 2014

BO constantly said while issuing his EO on immigration: the families shouldn't be broken up. That's not clarifying or electing to prosecute or not prosecute an existing law. That's BO's own sense of social justice that he's put into American law. I don't see that ability anywhere in The Constitution where the prez has that authority.

jwzg · Nov 28, 2014

Don't get me wrong: I think the current system of immigration is unworkable. That doesn't give the president the right to selectively enforce the laws on the books because it fits his or view of social justice (as already stated above, thank you).

What gets lost in this debate is the following:

Why the immigrants are coming here?
Can we truly identify who they are?
Are they looking for work or to serve as productive members of society?
Who pays for their healthcare?
Who pays for their education?

These are a few of the reasons why immigration reform in the way that the president is doing it is resisted by many.

To the wise eye, the end game of the Democratic Party seems to be fundamentally changing the electoral makeup of the country to an uneducated, unskilled population incapable distinguishing political rhetoric from reality which exacerbates the issue of an increasing wealth gap and puts an unsustainable long-term burden on entitlement programs. I venture to say that if it weren't for the massive increases of entitlement spending since 1965, we would not be having this conversation as we would want people to be reunited with their families. We would want people to find a way to work and be prosperous. We would want people to support their families back home and take the lessons they had learned about what makes America so desirable back to their own countries. As it sits, both parties are greedy to the point of stupidity and are running us into the ground by not looking at the deeper issues.

Grant · Nov 28, 2014

sangha said:
Many undocumented aliens entered the country legally and then overstayed on their visa, which is not a crime.

One hundred per cent of all the people who have entered the United States illegally have committed a crime. It really is one of the easier stats to understand.

Gaius46 · Nov 28, 2014

cabse5 said:
So tell me, what Immigration Reform law(s) has BO's EO on Immigration Reform clarified or directed his 'underlings' to enforce or not enforce?

Not having access to the text of the EO- it hatn been published yet - I can't cite specific statutes but that hardly seems relevant. Why do you ask?

sangha · Nov 28, 2014

cabse5 said:
If you wish to debate, I'll gladly debate. I you wish to spin, I'll say bye bye. BTW, which previous Immigration Reform law(s) is BO clarifying or directing his 'underlings' to enforce or not enforce with his EO on immigration? Maybe it's a clarification or even a refusal to prosecute the law that states children of undocumenteds that are born in the US become US citizens?

I've already posted this more than once in this thread, but here it is again

http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=754

General authority for defered action exists under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 103(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a), which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to enforce the immigration laws. Though no statutes oregulations delineate defered action in specific terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that decisions to initate or terminate enforcement procedings fall squarely within the authority of the Executive. In the immigration context, the Executive Branch has exercised its general enforcement authority to grant defered action since at least 1971. Federal courts have acknowledged the existence of this executive power at least as far back as the mid–1970s.5

Parole–in–place refers to a form of parole granted by the Executive Branch under
the authority of INA § 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 182(d)(5). Under this provision, the Atorney
General “may . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such
conditons as he may prescribe only on a case–by–case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit any alien aplying for admision to the United
States.”7 Parole permits a noncitzen to remain lawfuly in the United States, although
parole does not constiute an “admision” under the INA. Individuals who have ben
paroled are eligible for work authorization

Defered enforced departure, often refered to as DED, is a form of prosecutorial
discretion that is closely related to defered action. Almost every Administration since
President Dwight D. Eisenhower has granted DED or the analogous “Extended Voluntary
Departure” to at least one group of noncitzens.15 As with defered action, executive
authority to grant defered enforced departure and extended voluntary departure exists
under the general authority to enforce the immigration laws as set out in INA § 103(a), 8
U.S.C. § 1103(a).1

If BO refuses to prosecute that law, you do realize children of undocumenteds born in the US WOULD NOT automatically become US citizens, don't you (sometimes you have to resort to concrete thinking to get through)?

If you really believe in concrete thinking, try reading the constitution. Pay close attention to the part about citizenship. It says anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizem so when an undocumented alien has a child in the US, the child is automatically a US citizen.

No..that isn't correct because that law didn't deal with the PARENTS of children of undocumenteds born in the US as BO's EO did. The immigration law BO refers to with his EO on immigration is actually just BO's own sense of social justice.

You're wrong. First, there is no EO. WTF does "PARENTS of children of undocumenteds born in the US" mean? The "parents of children of undocumented" are what the rest of call "parents".

If the parents were born in the US, they are citizens so Obama's actions don't address them. If the parents are citizens, then so are their children (or at least they're already eligible for citizenship). If the parents and children are all non-citizens, then Obama's actions don't affect them. Obama's actions affect the non-citizen parents of children who are citizens.

SO if you're going to whine about "spin", I suggest you avoid twisted language like " the PARENTS of children of undocumenteds born in the US" and instead of pretending that I haven't already posted the laws which grant POTUS the power to do what he has done, I suggest you read them.

sangha · Nov 28, 2014

jwzg said:
Don't get me wrong: I think the current system of immigration is unworkable. That doesn't give the president the right to selectively enforce the laws on the books because it fits his or view of social justice (as already stated above, thank you).

You're right. The fact that you think the immigrantion system we have is unworkable doesn't give the president any power to do anything. What gives him that power is the law. I have already posted (several times in fact) the laws which grant the president the power to do what Obama has done. Chanting "He doesn't have the power to change the law" doesn't change the fact that Congress voted to give POTUS the power to do what Obama has done.

sangha · Nov 28, 2014

Grant said:
One hundred per cent of all the people who have entered the United States illegally have committed a crime. It really is one of the easier stats to understand.

100% of the people who entered the US legally entered the US legally

Only a right wingers could fail to understand that truism

Obama acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million

sangha

sangha

jwzg

Freedom Fighter

Conservative

jwzg

Freedom Fighter

Conservative

jwzg

Freedom Fighter

Conservative

jwzg

Freedom Fighter

j-mac

sangha

sangha

sangha

Conservative

AJiveMan

Paying To Play

AJiveMan

Paying To Play

cabse5

cabse5

cabse5

jwzg

Freedom Fighter

Grant

Gaius46

sangha

sangha

sangha