Obama to order immunity for young illegal immigrants

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,179
14,611
146
The same bearing the bleating sheep constantly repeat about how other countries deal with their health care for its citizens. If its fair to do that its fair to point out what other countries do with immigration, no?

For the record, I do think we should embrace our neighbor to the south's policies in dealing with illegal crossings. Reciprocation and all that.

I agree. If their laws are good enough for them to use for dealing with their illegal immigrants, they should be good enough for us to use when dealing with OUR illegal immigrants. What's fair is fair, right?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
When you say "changing the law," what act of Congress are we talking about here? Changing prior executive orders and/or policies of the INS are entirely within Obama's power, so we need a citation to a Congressional statute here.

BTW I agree that this was done to bolster Obama with Hispanic voters. However, I'm interested in exploring your legal contention.

- wolf
The basic tenants are of course set out in Title 8 of the US Code and also in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Together these spell out very carefully the limits from each country, the procedures for getting a visa or work permit, and the conditions under which waivers may be granted.

In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 spells out time barriers preventing illegal aliens from applying for visas, re-entering the country, or applying for green cards (work visas) for a specified time after a specified time spent illegally in America. This is an actual law, as I'm sure you know, and spells out certain hardship conditions under which a spouse or parent - but not a child - may after investigation be granted a hardship waiver. In allowing illegals brought over as children to apply for a green card or visa in spite of being in violation of US law, under no applicable waiver within that law, President Obama unilaterally changed this law - the very thing that, eight months ago, he claimed to not have the power to do.

You need to carefully think through the possible ramifications of your position that Obama may unilaterally change such laws as he sees fit. If he has this power, does he not also have the power to unilaterally make citizens of everyone from the Texas-California border down through Tierra del Fuego? By one stroke of the pen he could simultaneously destroy this country in any recognizable form and probably make himself President-for-Life in whatever form its debris would take. If he does not in your opinion have that power, why not, and what holds him back? If the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Title 8, and the Immigration and Nationality Act can all be overridden at his whim, what law can possibly constrain his power?

Below are links to the cited codes. I can't point you to individual sections he violated because when a bill does not include a power that a President has seized, the whole bill doesn't include this power.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1016.html#0-0-0-180

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-10948.html

Part of an article discussing the three and ten year bars Obama just removed for hundreds of thousands of illegals, from the very pro-illegal Immigration Policy Center.
http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-f...w-three-and-ten-year-bars-keep-families-apart
Most Americans take it for granted that marriage to a U.S. citizen and other family relationships entitle an immigrant to a green card, but there are barriers that often prevent or delay these family members from becoming lawful permanent residents, even if they are already in the United States. Among these barriers are the “three- and ten-year bars,” provisions of the law which prohibit applicants from returning to the United States if they were previously in the U.S. illegally. Thousands of people who qualify for green cards based on their relationships to U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relatives leave the U.S. to obtain their green card are caught in a Catch-22—under current law they must leave the country to apply for their green card abroad, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering the U.S. for three or ten years.

The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the bar to admission if extreme hardship to a spouse or parent can be established. But there are no waivers available for others, even if it would mean hardship for U.S. citizen children. Unfortunately, current policies and interpretations of these provisions have made it difficult—and sometimes impossible—for many deserving applicants to obtain a waiver, especially if they initially entered the country illegally. Under current DHS policy, applicants must apply for the waiver from abroad, sometimes waiting months or years in another country before they learn whether the waiver has been granted and whether they will be permitted to return to their loved ones in the United States.

In other words, immigrants who have a chance to legalize their status are not able to do so because of a combination of overly punitive immigration laws and the rigid interpretations of those laws currently followed by DHS and Department of State. Immigrants have to choose between leaving the country and taking the risk they might not be able to return, or remaining in the country illegally. Where waivers are available, many of the immigrants most likely to be able to show extreme hardship are afraid to leave the country precisely because of that hardship. For example, a wife with a disabled husband must choose between departing the United States to get right with the law or taking care of her U.S. citizen husband.

Many have argued that the process need not be so complicated or unforgiving and that changes in existing policy could allow for the consideration of waivers before the applicant departs the United States. In order to understand how this issue affects the immigration debate, this IPC Fact Check provides background on the three- and ten-year bar issue.

What Are the Three- and Ten-Year Bars?

Sections 212(a)(9)(i) and 212 (a)(9)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) impose re-entry bars on immigrants who are present in the U.S. illegally for a period of time, leave the U.S., and want to re-enter lawfully. An immigrant who enters the United States without inspection (illegally), or who overstays a period of admission by more than 180 days, but less than one year, and who then departs the U. S. voluntarily, is barred from being re-admitted or re-entering the United States for three years. If an immigrant is in the country illegally for more than one year, a ten year bar to admission applies.

Who Must Leave the U.S. for a Green Card and Why?

U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents may petition for green cards for certain family members. Sometimes the immigrant family members are outside of the U.S. when the petition is filed and when the visa becomes available, and sometimes those family members are already residing within the U.S. while they wait for their petition to be adjudicated and their visa to become available. Those in the U.S. may be here legally on a visa, or they may have come on a visa but that visa expired, or they may have entered the U.S. without proper documentation.

If the applicant for a family-based green card is the spouse, parent, or child under age 21 of a U.S. citizen (immediate relatives) AND if the applicant entered the U.S. with a valid visa (such as a visitor or student visa), that applicant may, in most cases, get their green cards in the U.S. through a process called “adjustment of status.”

However, all other people applying through the family-based system must go abroad and apply for their visa at a U.S. consulate in a procedure known as “consular processing.” The adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens, as well as the spouses and children of legal permanent residents, must leave the country to get their green cards, whether they initially entered on a legal visa or not.

Are Waivers of the Three- and Ten-year Bars Available?

A waiver of the three- or ten-year bar is available only where extreme hardship to an applicant’s citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent can be established. Hardship to the immigrant himself is not a factor, and hardship to the immigrant’s children is not a factor (even if the children are U.S. citizens).


The current system for processing and adjudicating these waiver requests requires immigrants to leave the U.S. and receive a formal determination of inadmissibility by a U.S. consular officer before a waiver application can even be submitted. Then the immigrants must apply for waivers of the three- or ten-year bar from outside the United States. In Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, one of the busiest consulates handling green card applications and waivers, there is currently a two to three month wait between submitting an application to the State Department and receiving a waiver interview with a USCIS representative. Approximately half of those applications can be decided immediately while the rest are sent to the United States for further review; the waiting time for that review can vary significantly, but averages at least another twelve months. Of course, not all waivers are granted, and those immigrants may not reunite with their family members for years. An appeal of a denied waiver can take up to 28 months or longer before the Administrative Appeals Offices adjudicates the appeal. This means longer periods of separation for family members.

Note the bolded portions.

EDIT: Crap, forgot to reference the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, which modified the 1952 (I think) Immigration and Nationality Act which set our modern quote system immigration policy. here's a link - you'll need it since a large part of the 1996 Act is modifying the language in the 1994 Act which is modifying the 1952 Act or Title 8. http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-7752.html
 
Last edited:

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,181
23
81
Why bother werepossum? There's too many voters and posters here who would proclaim Obama Emperor/dictator for life if they had the chance. I mean he's so perfect why do we even need a congressional or judicial branch?
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I agree. If their laws are good enough for them to use for dealing with their illegal immigrants, they should be good enough for us to use when dealing with OUR illegal immigrants. What's fair is fair, right?
I think reciprocity should be the basis for all our interactions with foreign nations. If China says a foreign corporation wishing to start a company in China must have 50% Chinese ownership, let's adopt that here - at the least. If Germany has a tariff for imported goods, let's match it - at the least. If Mexico throws its illegals in jail and then later deports them, let's adopt that law for illegals from Mexico.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Why bother werepossum? There's too many voters and posters here who would proclaim Obama Emperor/dictator for life if they had the chance. I mean he's so perfect why do we even need a congressional or judicial branch?
This is true.

And with that I MUST get to work, else I'll be up all night.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,179
14,611
146
I think reciprocity should be the basis for all our interactions with foreign nations. If China says a foreign corporation wishing to start a company in China must have 50% Chinese ownership, let's adopt that here - at the least. If Germany has a tariff for imported goods, let's match it - at the least. If Mexico throws its illegals in jail and then later deports them, let's adopt that law for illegals from Mexico.

:thumbsup:

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Maybe because of the nonsensical nature of these points?

What possible bearing does it have if any other countries have done this before?

In addition, Let Me Google That For You.

So you can't debate with facts, links, or sources, therefore "nonsense"? LOL.

See the posts from Blackstang and Possum. I don't have to repeat it. Now your turn.

Again, why bother to have immigration law and not enforce it?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
So you can't debate with facts, links, or sources, therefore "nonsense"? LOL.

See the posts from Blackstang and Possum. I don't have to repeat it. Now your turn.

Again, why bother to have immigration law and not enforce it?

I dunno- would that be better, or worse, than the Bush admin not enforcing financial regs? Do you think failure to deport people brought to this country as children will crash the economy, or what?

Or will it just pollute our collective precious bodily fluids? Mongrelize the White Race? Make the baby Jesus cry?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I dunno- would that be better, or worse, than the Bush admin not enforcing financial regs? Do you think failure to deport people brought to this country as children will crash the economy, or what?

Or will it just pollute our collective precious bodily fluids? Mongrelize the White Race? Make the baby Jesus cry?

Hummm, did you see my posts about my unhappiness with the huge amnesty program with Reagan in the 80s? I am equal opportunity basher on both parties.

Speaking of finance regs, did you see any of the Wall Street/finance big cheese in jail lately? Not me either. I am all in for fully prosecute those bastards. I am sure Obama and Holder are working very hard on that. :D

Again, read my last sentence of "why bother to have immigration law and not enforce it". That's my beef.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
The same bearing the bleating sheep constantly repeat about how other countries deal with their health care for its citizens. If its fair to do that its fair to point out what other countries do with immigration, no?.

Sure go ahead, find another modern western 1st world country with a bordering 3rd world narco-state to its south and we can play that game.

What was that you were saying about healthcare systems? Yes lets hear about how Canada deals with its massive southern neighbour.

For the record, I do think we should embrace our neighbor to the south's policies in dealing with illegal crossings. Reciprocation and all that.

Good idea, lets start cutting off the hands of thieves as well, I hear that works well elsewhere.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
So you can't debate with facts, links, or sources, therefore "nonsense"? LOL.

See the posts from Blackstang and Possum. I don't have to repeat it. Now your turn.

Again, why bother to have immigration law and not enforce it?

Tell ya what, when you can tell me the defined legal difference between someone who sneaks across the border and a child was brought over by their parents in that way, then maybe we can start to have a reasonable debate.

Until then, you are asking me to "prove" your opinion wrong, in addition to confusing me with another poster.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
This is true.

And with that I MUST get to work, else I'll be up all night.

His order is pretty narrow and targetted at a very specific group fitting very specific criteria. It seems like a decent solution to handle a group of undocumented residents who in most cases have lived here all their lives in a strange limbo through no fault of their own.

Executive orders have been around for a looong time and do have some basis in the Constitution.

No need to bend over backwards to try and paint Obama as some sort of radical ursurping Congress.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,222
12,736
136
Tell ya what, when you can tell me the defined legal difference between someone who sneaks across the border and a child was brought over by their parents in that way, then maybe we can start to have a reasonable debate.

Until then, you are asking me to "prove" your opinion wrong, in addition to confusing me with another poster.

according to immigration law, wouldn't they both be illegal? i don't think there's a "degree of illegal-ness" :hmm:
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
according to immigration law, wouldn't they both be illegal? i don't think there's a "degree of illegal-ness" :hmm:

There is.

You steal a pack of gum, it is petty theft. You steal $1M, it is Grand Larceny, but they are both stealing.

The point of law is not to punish, but to deter. This is to limit or eliminate damage.

If no damage is being caused by a small group of productive illegals, it is unfair to treat them as if they were drug smuggling gang members.

Justice may be blind, but the law should not be.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
His order is pretty narrow and targetted at a very specific group fitting very specific criteria. It seems like a decent solution to handle a group of undocumented residents who in most cases have lived here all their lives in a strange limbo through no fault of their own.

And it also is not fair to the Millions of people who would like to legally immigrate to the US that some people get to jump in line ahead of them just because their parents brought them into the country illegally.

Now maybe it would be reasonable to grant them some accommodation if we also at the same time charged their parents with human trafficking.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Tell ya what, when you can tell me the defined legal difference between someone who sneaks across the border and a child was brought over by their parents in that way, then maybe we can start to have a reasonable debate.

Until then, you are asking me to "prove" your opinion wrong, in addition to confusing me with another poster.

Again, you obviously ignore my main point. Why bother to have immigration law if the government does not enforce it?

I do not confuse you with anyone else. When I mentioned Blackstang and Possum, I agreed with their statements such as

If Mexico throws its illegals in jail and then later deports them, let's adopt that law for illegals from Mexico

For the record, I do think we should embrace our neighbor to the south's policies in dealing with illegal crossings. Reciprocation and all that.

Also,this is my other main point. Why should we as a sovereign nation have to give break to the uneducate and no skill ILLEGAL peasants while there are ten of milion of people with skill, money, smart, and able to speak English, waiting for years to get in LEGALLY? That would be insane and stupid to pick the lowest of the low and ignore the smart ones.
 
Last edited:

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Again, you obviously ignore my main point. Why bother to have immigration law if the government does not enforce it?

I do not confuse you with anyone else. When I mentioned Blackstang and Possum, I agreed with their statements such as





Also, why should we as a sovereign nation have to give break to the uneducate and no skill ILLEGAL peasants while there are ten of milion of people with skill, money, smart, and able to speak English, waiting for years to get in LEGALLY? That would be insane and stupid to pick the lowest of the low and ignore the smart ones.

You can jump and down and nash your teeth all you want Svnla, but you are not going to deport 20+ million illegal/undocumented residents.

If this was a debate about opening up the border, then we would be in agreement.

I just don't see deportation as a practical, even feasable, solution to this "problem" as "enforcing the law".

Ya cant do it, so what are you going to do instead? Live with our current mess?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
You can jump and down and nash your teeth all you want Svnla, but you are not going to deport 20+ million illegal/undocumented residents.

If this was a debate about opening up the border, then we would be in agreement.

I just don't see deportation as a practical, even feasable, solution to this "problem" as "enforcing the law".

Ya cant do it, so what are you going to do instead? Live with our current mess?

First of all, I would NOT be the one that say "let round up all of them ILLEGALS tomorrow and fly them back down south pronto". That would be impossible and very costly. This problem took years to be this bad and it would take years to solve it.

Secondly, there were several suggestions in this thread and in the other thread bout ILLEGALS. Such as "guest program" or "work program" or "ID program" and so on for hard working ILLEGLAS. Those would be a good start for now. Heck, anything but amnesty would be better than nothing and then give break to ILLEGALS as we are doing right now.

The bottom line is we CAN NOT afford to give any more breaks to ILLEGLAS. We tried that before with Reagan amnesty in the 80s and we all know the result of that. Do the same thing and expect different result = insane, crazy, and beyond stupid.

ILLEGALS must be behind the line of the LEGALS. We MUST pick the best of the best around the world to come here and create another Yahoo/Google/Intel/ect. to help us to compete in the future, not more uneducated and unskilled peasants. Good lord, we already have more than enough of the unskilled and uneducated folks, we do not need more of the ILLEGALS to join them.
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
First of all, I would NOT be the one that say "let round up all of them ILLEGALS tomorrow and fly them back down south pronto". That would be impossible and very costly.

snip

Look, there are reasons why nothing is going to change for the positive:

  • Bleeding Hearts/White Guilters: Absolutely nothing anyone says is going to convince this voting demographic that anything less than Open Borders is acceptable. This doesn't apply to just those streaming across our southern border, it applies to any sob story that can make their way to the US. If this demographic had its way, the US would have every square inch of soil packed with the entirety of the worlds sob stories. These people are completely hopelessly mind F'd, do not even try and hold a conversation with them on this topic. Their core depends on their mentality to survive, so their mental self preservation system will not allow them to change beliefs on this. Nothing is too far a stretch from them to rationalize Open Borders. Nothing.
  • DamnTheMans: Often are also a member of the group above, but not always. This voting demographic has some problem with authority, and thus roots for any and all groups who challenge that authority in whatever way possible. Illegally being here, flaunting it even, is a huge coup for these folks, and thus garners lots of points. Don't expect to change any minds here either.
  • Cheapers: This voting demographic you might have some chance of breaking through with, although it's very doubtful. These people get really shifty when you suggest it might be better to pay .70c for a tomato instead of .40c, but have a legal worker pick it instead of an illegal. You can also lump in to some degree folks who might have to - gasp! - mow their own lawn, - gasp! - pull their own weeds, - gasp! - clean their own gutters, etc. etc. etc., or, pay someone more than slave labor wages to do it. Everyone likes money, and especially likes having more of it for themselves, so good luck in convincing these folks that they should pay a little more than they are now for the same thing they're getting now for "cheaper". The best thing about this group is, unlike the two above groups who predominantly vote for one side (thus ensuring one sides complicity in allowing the illegal invasion to continue), this group spans both sides of the aisle. Truly bipartisan!
  • Greeders: Not to be confused with Cheapers, the Greeder voting demographic is distinct in that their interests lie in keeping that hard working cheap gravy train rolling so they can maximize their profits in some way. Where the Cheaper is focusing on end user goods/services costs to just themselves, the Greeder is that businessperson making it happen. Good examples of this are business owners who in the past would have busting their own ass at their own business, but now, with the help of illegal labor, can sit back, exploit someone else, and reap the rewards. See restaurant owners, various blue collar trade owners, farmers, auto related owners, etc. etc. etc. See the pattern here? Just like the Cheapers, this one is as well just as bipartisan. And it's just as spread out. No way is that farmer going to not get that 2013 GMC 2500 Denali for himself, his 2010 version of the same thing, still in fine shape, needs to be replaced! And that restaurant owner who brags they own a restaurant, you think they're going to not put in that new pool at their vacation house just so they have to hire legal labor and pay wages that will retain people who will show up to do that work??? My god, they'd have to raise their food prices a little, thereby upsetting the Cheapers, and not put in that pool! Insanity I tell you, insanity!
  • GreedersPart2: This seperate, but distinct, category of Greeder is much more high end than the peon Greeder above. This is the more sophisticated Greeder. Beware of these, as they will have studies, figures, etc. to make their case that letting 10's of millions of mostly uneducated illegals into the country, along with all the kids these illegals will end up having, is a great thing. The entire illegal house of cards depends on these high end Greeders, as these are what the Politicians consult and depend on to rationalize and make their case on why this problem just can't be fixed. When you get excuses like negative population growth, benefit outweighs the costs, etc. etc. etc., you have run into the higher end Greeder.

As you can see, getting any of the above groups, who combined completely control each side of the respective politcal aisle, to flip on the issue will be impossible. Pandora's box has been opened, and America has tasted, neih, chomped on and swallowed whole, what all the white slave owners went to war over to keep. You think there are any Politicians now who have the stones to go to war again to fix this issue as it should be? Hahaha....No. The Politicians "constituency" is controlled by the above people. That the 60%+ of us in the middle want the border sealed matters not a F'ing bit to them, they've got the above groups Nazi believer like in their camp, they simply do not care what we want.

Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez!

Chuck
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Dude

Republicans under Bush brought their parents into the country.

Obama is the true Messiah to fix the mess Republicans have made.

He deserves every Hispanic vote he will get :thumbsup:

Hows your Messiah workin out brah?


Sorry. Still hoping he gets a second term. That way no one will ever vote Democrat again.