Obama to order immunity for young illegal immigrants

[fskimospy]

So was the American support for the Iraq war...

Yes. What's your point? My point is that in America as a whole this move is extremely popular while on this board it seems quite unpopular. That is interesting to me as it shows how at least on the issue of immigration the average poster on here is unrepresentative of the average American. My guess would be that it is due to the heavily male/white skewed demographics. In turn, this also makes me wonder what other issues that might affect.

You seem to be arguing as if I were making some argumentum ad populum statement, which I have explicitly said I am not. While I personally am quite pleased with Obama's choice and wish he would go much further, I do not believe that my position is correct just because a lot of other people do.

Oh, and the idea that this is some sort of power grab is a hilarious fever dream by the right. Presidents have used deferred action on immigration issues for more than 40 years, GWB included. Cue my total lack of shock that this went without mention by the right under GWB but is suddenly a threat to democracy under Obama.

 

[shortylickens]

The visa thing is a bit tricky. It can sometimes take many months to get a visa renewed. This can cause someone to overstay the visa while waiting for the renewal to be approved.

The big problem isnt people over on their visas. Its folks running across the border or floating in on driftwood and then making a litter of babies.

 

[alzan]

Nice way of avoiding the questions. Just like a politician.

What changed in law in 12 months that gave the president the power to do what he did?


By your none answer, I take it you have no problems with him coming out and saying illegals can now vote for president, because he wont enforce voting laws.

Asked and answered: I am not the AG or a member of his staff so I don't know what legal precedent they used in determining that it was OK for the President to sign the Executive Order. How can I avoid a question when I don't have access to the answer?

I guess you mean "non-answer"; what direct evidence do you have that the President will say illegals can now vote or that he will not enforce voting laws? (Hint: using the non-enforcement of DOMA or any other federal law is not evidence as they are completely different issues.)

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is in PA now. We have one of the stricted in the nation.

n an election year rush pushed primarily by Republicans, Pennsylvania has become the 16th state to adopt a strict voter photo ID law and the ninth state to do so in the past year.

The law requires voters to produce a Pennsylvania driver's license or another government-issued photo IphilD, such as a U.S. passport, military ID, or county/municipal employee ID. The state will also accept college ID or personal care home IDs, as long as they are current and include an expiration date.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...r-id-law-passes-in-battleground-pennsylvania/

Hopefully, there are more teeth than what is in the article.

Military ID does not guarantee one is a US citizen
Colleges do not check if one is a citizen.

 

[michal1980]

Asked and answered: I am not the AG or a member of his staff so I don't know what legal precedent they used in determining that it was OK for the President to sign the Executive Order. How can I avoid a question when I don't have access to the answer?

So you have no answer. Obama was wrong at least once.

I guess you mean "non-answer"; what direct evidence do you have that the President will say illegals can now vote or that he will not enforce voting laws? (Hint: using the non-enforcement of DOMA or any other federal law is not evidence as they are completely different issues.)

How are they different issues?

The issue is overt non-enforcement of laws to gain votes.

Since he has already shown he is willing to buy votes by granting illegals new rights. Whats to prevent him from going further?

Heck, on this issue, he hasn't even come out and said he couldn't do it.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes. What's your point? My point is that in America as a whole this move is extremely popular while on this board it seems quite unpopular. That is interesting to me as it shows how at least on the issue of immigration the average poster on here is unrepresentative of the average American. My guess would be that it is due to the heavily male/white skewed demographics. In turn, this also makes me wonder what other issues that might affect.

You seem to be arguing as if I were making some argumentum ad populum statement, which I have explicitly said I am not. While I personally am quite pleased with Obama's choice and wish he would go much further, I do not believe that my position is correct just because a lot of other people do.

My point is that the majority of Americans get things wrong a lot of time.

Yeah, you can say you are not making an appeal to authority, but at some point your repeating of the fact that this board "diverges stongly from the majority," that it is "fringe", etc suggests otherwise. As an analogy, if someone says they're not using an appeal from authority but keeps repeating that they have an advanced degree when making an argument in the scope of their field it seems reasonable to infer that they're in fact actually making an appeal from authority.

 

[IGBT]

quick..find a reason why this must be bushes fault.

 

[fskimospy]

My point is that the majority of Americans get things wrong a lot of time.

Yeah, you can say you are not making an appeal to authority, but at some point your repeating of the fact that this board "diverges stongly from the majority," that it is "fringe", etc suggests otherwise. As an analogy, if someone says they're not using an appeal from authority but keeps repeating that they have an advanced degree when making an argument in the scope of their field it seems reasonable to infer that they're in fact actually making an appeal from authority.

This would be an appeal to popularity if anything, but I find that people frequently misunderstand these fallacies. First of all, the appeal from authority you just described is a totally valid one. If someone is a legitimate expert in a field, it is entirely appropriate to mention this status in a discussion about it. While it does not mean that their argument MUST be true, the opinion of a recognized expert on his topic of expertise is most certainly evidence for such a statement's accuracy.

Similarly I find it odd that when I recognize the entirely true fact that this board diverges strongly from majority opinions in the US that somehow no amount of statements to the contrary can possibly stop me from magically creating an argument against your position that I have not made in this thread.

I have stated a fact, one that I found interesting in light of how it might affect other issues. You can like it or not like it, but don't try to tell me what my own argument is.

 

[Ninjahedge]

He knew you'd say that.

 

[piasabird]

I think the real problem is the stupid Federal Government has made it too difficult for Mexican and other foreign nationals to immigrate to the USA. It costs too much and there is too much red tape. People are forced to cross the border illegally if they want to come here. We need to give the people wanting to come to the USA legally the same respect and privliges as the illegals.

I think you will find that it costs thousands of dollars for the chance even for a 2 year work visa to come to the USA and work legally. So we should require the same payment from those already here, even if it is by a monthly payroll deduction, with a small down payment.

Normally all immigrants who want a visa also have to pass a background investigation and a medical screening.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I think the real problem is the stupid Federal Government has made it too difficult for Mexican and other foreign nationals to immigrate to the USA. It costs too much and there is too much red tape. People are forced to cross the border illegally if they want to come here. We need to give the people wanting to come to the USA legally the same respect and privliges as the illegals.

Mark your calendar piasa... I agree.

Or am I confusing you with someone else...?


Anyway, just like with weed, you make something difficult to obtain and laws will be broken to obtain it (if the need or desire is there). SOME people will make money off of that.

If you made work visas easier to get, and more actively monitored and enforced, you would get a much stronger work model. Simply restricting and forbidding costs too much money and is never that effective.....




Edit (you added) - Or they an do what many companies already do and have the employer pay for the permit.

If you can get someone in for 40 hour weeks during picking season (3 months?) and pay them $3 less an hour (still legally) than you would have to pay for a home grown worker, you could still save (40*3*12 = $1440 minus permit fees).

Charge $500 for a quarterly pass and you are set.

 

[piasabird]

I married someone in a foreign country and even 28 years ago there was a screening process you had to pass just to get permission to get married at the US Embassy, plus that did not guarantee the person would be granted an entry visa.

I would see nothing all that wrong with seasonal work permits for picking season or some other seasonal work like say a salmon packing season in Alaska.

However, I remember my dad telling me about working as a farm worker picking horse radish farm. I even bailed some hay once. Americans use to do these kinds of jobs all the time.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes. What's your point? My point is that in America as a whole this move is extremely popular while on this board it seems quite unpopular. That is interesting to me as it shows how at least on the issue of immigration the average poster on here is unrepresentative of the average American. My guess would be that it is due to the heavily male/white skewed demographics. In turn, this also makes me wonder what other issues that might affect.

You seem to be arguing as if I were making some argumentum ad populum statement, which I have explicitly said I am not. While I personally am quite pleased with Obama's choice and wish he would go much further, I do not believe that my position is correct just because a lot of other people do.

Oh, and the idea that this is some sort of power grab is a hilarious fever dream by the right. Presidents have used deferred action on immigration issues for more than 40 years, GWB included. Cue my total lack of shock that this went without mention by the right under GWB but is suddenly a threat to democracy under Obama.

Too found it interesting how much support their was for Obama's decision.

Bold (1) You seem to be implying that women and minorities are less likely to care about the rule of law
Bold (2) The difference is that GWB did not issue work permits to people illegally in the country. There would seem to be a big difference between choosing how to allocate limited enforcement resources, and actively rewarding those who broke the law.

 

[blackangst1]

If you made work visas easier to get, and more actively monitored and enforced, you would get a much stronger work model. Simply restricting and forbidding costs too much money and is never that effective.....

Not to mention all kinds of people yelling how work visa holders are taking American jobs :whiste:

 

[werepossum]

Yes. What's your point? My point is that in America as a whole this move is extremely popular while on this board it seems quite unpopular. That is interesting to me as it shows how at least on the issue of immigration the average poster on here is unrepresentative of the average American. My guess would be that it is due to the heavily male/white skewed demographics. In turn, this also makes me wonder what other issues that might affect.

You seem to be arguing as if I were making some argumentum ad populum statement, which I have explicitly said I am not. While I personally am quite pleased with Obama's choice and wish he would go much further, I do not believe that my position is correct just because a lot of other people do.

Oh, and the idea that this is some sort of power grab is a hilarious fever dream by the right. Presidents have used deferred action on immigration issues for more than 40 years, GWB included. Cue my total lack of shock that this went without mention by the right under GWB but is suddenly a threat to democracy under Obama.

WTF? Bush's weakness on illegal immigration, including his own amnesty plan, hardly "went without mention by the right", it was one of our three big beefs with him. (The other two being his lack of attempts to force any kind of fiscal responsibility and his Medicare entitlement.) If we're now even more strident with Obama, why shouldn't we be? Bush enforced existing immigration law in a lackluster manner and attempted to get Congress to change the law to provide amnesty. Obama is enforcing immigration existing law in a lackluster manner and has now unilaterally changed the law to provide amnesty. Issuing work permits to people who by law should be deported is far more egregious than simply ignoring the deportation requirements; it isn't merely ignoring the law, it's substituting a new law by Presidential whim, and obviously strictly for political purpose.

I understand that progressives want an imperial President who does whatever he wants, without regard to the law, but conservatives do not.

 

[werepossum]

I married someone in a foreign country and even 28 years ago there was a screening process you had to pass just to get permission to get married at the US Embassy, plus that did not guarantee the person would be granted an entry visa.

I would see nothing all that wrong with seasonal work permits for picking season or some other seasonal work like say a salmon packing season in Alaska.

However, I remember my dad telling me about working as a farm worker picking horse radish farm. I even bailed some hay once. Americans use to do these kinds of jobs all the time.

I did paid farm work all through my teens and for the family, through my twenties. In small Southern towns at least, most of this work is still done by Americans, although a lot of the tomato picking is done by Mexican migrant pickers. But I've picked tomatoes in fields adjacent to Mexicans picking tomatoes, and to a slightly smaller degree that still holds. To the degree that Americans are doing less farm work in our rural Southern areas, it's more changed expectations (parents want their teens doing extracurricular activities rather than working) and automation; the hay harvesting that used to take a dozen of us now takes two men on air conditioned tractors.

Where the illegals have taken over is in construction and in the factories. La-Z-Boy for instance has a very large illegal worker force in the town near which I was raised.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Not to mention all kinds of people yelling how work visa holders are taking American jobs :whiste:

It is always strange to see that those that say American Jobs are taken are not themselves working those same jobs.


I am more worried about our outsourcing than our import of cheap domestic labor.

 

[Infohawk]

This would be an appeal to popularity if anything, but I find that people frequently misunderstand these fallacies. First of all, the appeal from authority you just described is a totally valid one. If someone is a legitimate expert in a field, it is entirely appropriate to mention this status in a discussion about it. While it does not mean that their argument MUST be true, the opinion of a recognized expert on his topic of expertise is most certainly evidence for such a statement's accuracy.

Similarly I find it odd that when I recognize the entirely true fact that this board diverges strongly from majority opinions in the US that somehow no amount of statements to the contrary can possibly stop me from magically creating an argument against your position that I have not made in this thread.

I have stated a fact, one that I found interesting in light of how it might affect other issues. You can like it or not like it, but don't try to tell me what my own argument is.

Granted it might not fall under the formal definition of an appeal to authority, but experts can be wrong so that the mere fact that someone is an expert is not evidence that they're statement is correct. (And my pet peeve is that people often spend energy arguing their expertise instead of just setting for a rational argument or citing evidence.) To be clear, I was not saying you were making an appeal to authority. I was trying to analogize.

It's one thing to recognize a perceived pattern (one that I'm not even sure is as clear-cut as you think it is on this forum) and it's another thing to keep harping on it. I'll try a different analogy. If someone keeps pointing out that another poster only has a high school diploma and says they think it's interesting, at some point does it stop mattering that they say they are not saying the person is wrong because they only have a high school diploma?

Bottom line is that you are free to keep repeating that it's an unpopular opinion and I'll just point out situations where a popular opinion was wrong.

 

[blackangst1]

It is always strange to see that those that say American Jobs are taken are not themselves working those same jobs.

That would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

I am more worried about our outsourcing than our import of cheap domestic labor.

As am I. But jobs are slowly starting to trickle back which is good.

 

[fskimospy]

WTF? Bush's weakness on illegal immigration, including his own amnesty plan, hardly "went without mention by the right", it was one of our three big beefs with him. (The other two being his lack of attempts to force any kind of fiscal responsibility and his Medicare entitlement.) If we're now even more strident with Obama, why shouldn't we be? Bush enforced existing immigration law in a lackluster manner and attempted to get Congress to change the law to provide amnesty. Obama is enforcing immigration existing law in a lackluster manner and has now unilaterally changed the law to provide amnesty. Issuing work permits to people who by law should be deported is far more egregious than simply ignoring the deportation requirements; it isn't merely ignoring the law, it's substituting a new law by Presidential whim, and obviously strictly for political purpose.

I'm not talking about general immigration policy, I'm talking about this action. Can you provide me with a link to a single conservative either on this board or elsewhere complaining about deferred action taking place under Bush? Despite the fact that he also employed this type of action I'm unaware of any. Since this is apparently an unconstitutional end run on democracy, I would presume that conservatives were up in arms about it.

I understand that progressives want an imperial President who does whatever he wants, without regard to the law, but conservatives do not.

Delusional and obviously false.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not talking about general immigration policy, I'm talking about this action. Can you provide me with a link to a single conservative either on this board or elsewhere complaining about deferred action taking place under Bush? Despite the fact that he also employed this type of action I'm unaware of any. Since this is apparently an unconstitutional end run on democracy, I would presume that conservatives were up in arms about it.

I am sure that GWB also made decisions to pursue action against certain classes of illegal immigrants over others. Given that resources are limited this is completely rational policy.

The difference is that to my knowledge:

1.) He never announced that certain classes of illegal immigrants would be granted immunity to prosecution.
2.) He never decided to unilaterally issue work permits to illegal immigrants.

 

[blackangst1]

I am sure that GWB also made decisions to pursue action against certain classes of illegal immigrants over others. Given that resources are limited this is completely rational policy.

The difference is that to my knowledge:

1.) He never announced that certain classes of illegal immigrants would be granted immunity to prosecution.
2.) He never decided to unilaterally issue work permits to illegal immigrants.

Not to mention he also took a fairly hardline approach towards illegal immigrants, while still maintaining the need for a proper legal immigration process. He also was well known to be very tolerant and respectful of the latino community. The legal ones that is.

And BTW as to your 2nd point...Obama's exec decision does NOT grant work permits.

 

[fskimospy]

I am sure that GWB also made decisions to pursue action against certain classes of illegal immigrants over others. Given that resources are limited this is completely rational policy.

The difference is that to my knowledge:

1.) He never announced that certain classes of illegal immigrants would be granted immunity to prosecution.
2.) He never decided to unilaterally issue work permits to illegal immigrants.

1.) Obama has not announced that certain classes of illegal immigrants would be granted immunity to prosecution. He announced that ICE would be undertaking a program of deferred action on certain classes of immigrants in order to focus its resources on other, more dangerous ones. Prosecution can still take place at any time the government chooses. Previous presidents have done this already.

2.) Obama is not issuing work permits, or at least not doing so differently than any other previous president. People subject to deferred action have always been eligible to apply for work permits while here under a deferred action status.

 

[alzan]

So you have no answer. Obama was wrong at least once.



How are they different issues?

The issue is overt non-enforcement of laws to gain votes.

Since he has already shown he is willing to buy votes by granting illegals new rights. Whats to prevent him from going further?

Heck, on this issue, he hasn't even come out and said he couldn't do it.

Really? You don't see the difference between DOMA and immigration?

All you're doing is framing the issue in particular way. Please show proof that non-enforcement of DOMA gained him any votes or potential votes; otherwise it's just your opinion that the issue is about non-enforcement of laws to gain votes.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not talking about general immigration policy, I'm talking about this action. Can you provide me with a link to a single conservative either on this board or elsewhere complaining about deferred action taking place under Bush? Despite the fact that he also employed this type of action I'm unaware of any. Since this is apparently an unconstitutional end run on democracy, I would presume that conservatives were up in arms about it.



Delusional and obviously false.

Tell you what. You provide for me a link to President Bush legalizing hundreds of thousands of illegals and I'll look for some conservative outrage. Until that time I'll continue to believe that Bush, although very pro-amnesty, never took it upon himself to unilaterally change the law to what he wanted but could not get through Congress.

And while you SAY it's "Delusional and obviously false" that "progressives want an imperial President who does whatever he wants, without regard to the law", every single time he does this (or Clinton did this) you guys are leading the cheers. Coincidence?