Obama to order immunity for young illegal immigrants

[Ninjahedge]

That doesn't count....... They weren't Mexicans! :wark:

 

[quest55720]

I saw a great counter example to this. How would the people who are in favor of this abuse of power feel about this. A future republican president submits a bill to congress abolishing the capitol gains tax. It is rejected so the president instructs the IRS to no longer collect the capitol gains tax and there is no future penalties or fines for not paying capitol gains tax. If what obama did by-passing congress is right so is this right?

 

[werepossum]

I saw a great counter example to this. How would the people who are in favor of this abuse of power feel about this. A future republican president submits a bill to congress abolishing the capitol gains tax. It is rejected so the president instructs the IRS to no longer collect the capitol gains tax and there is no future penalties or fines for not paying capitol gains tax. If what obama did by-passing congress is right so is this right?

Or course not - you said a future Republican President. The trailing 'D' is what adds the magical smoke of benediction.

 

[fskimospy]

I saw a great counter example to this. How would the people who are in favor of this abuse of power feel about this. A future republican president submits a bill to congress abolishing the capitol gains tax. It is rejected so the president instructs the IRS to no longer collect the capitol gains tax and there is no future penalties or fines for not paying capitol gains tax. If what obama did by-passing congress is right so is this right?

lol, that is a great example but not for the reasons you think.

The IRS already does exactly what you're saying. They have limited resources and therefore prioritize enforcement actions on certain groups over others.

 

[woolfe9999]

Is this some sort of bizarro world we're living in? My video explicitly refutes your point. What Obama did was issue an order to prioritize enforcement of immigration laws, which is exactly what he said he could do in the video. Electing to defer action on deportations and to not pursue certain groups due to the limited resources available is almost word for word what he said. You were flat out wrong, and I just proved it. It's okay to admit you're wrong sometimes.

EDIT: Here's the quote by Obama


Also, while it's nice to notice you start to retreat about the whole 'changing the law' thing, you're still very very wrong. Executive orders are not laws in any way, shape, or form. Words have meanings.

Still waiting for an explanation on why Obama doing this is making him a king or whatever, but the previous presidents who undertook deferred action somehow weren't. Why is it so hard to answer such a simple question?

This reminds me of the criticism of Obama for not under-prioritizing enforcement of the marijuana laws, when there was a federal crackdown on medical pot in California last year. It seems that under-prioritizing enforcement is OK, or even preferred, when it's a law we don't like, but when it's a law we do like, then under prioritizing is of course an outrage.

 

[nehalem256]

Deferred action by bush halting the deportation proceedings for thousands of Liberians. What is odd to me is that you guys would have to ask for for examples.

Why is it so funny? You cannot even provide a link to Bush doing that.

Perhaps you should post a link describing exactly what a past President did that you think is comparable to Obama's recent action so we can fairly compare it.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Wolf... the key here is that this is not even a case of "we like".

2/3 of the people do not mind this decision. So "we" seem to be fine with it.

It is the people who are hateful and looking for someone to blame for something out of their control that hate this. The blame does not fit what has actually been done, and neither does most of the criticism.

 

[Paul98]

This is only a short term measure to allow certain people who we would like to be in the US legally to work and go to school.

Really the basic solution seems like it would be simple. The specifics wouldn't be, but would be very doable.

Step 1. Secure the borders, you would need to look at good solutions and how much they would cost.

Step 2. Create a path so that those who we would like to stay here are able to have a path to do that without fear of being deported.

Step 3. Create a system to check legal status, and efficient deportation of those illegals that we don't want to have in the US.


Seems like if you did a quality job of these three things you would get a system that would work.

 

[Svnla]

Tell me where I said that.

Can you please go back and read my examples?

If a 3yo comes in illegally and is found out when they are 4, they are going back with mommy and daddy.

But a 3yo that is now 20 and a productive member of society should not be kicked to the curb because of something his parents did.

And no, this is not a shortcut/get out of jail (Mexico) free card. They still have to be "worthy" individuals that are valued members of the community.

1. The term would be "Giving the finger to all those legal....."

2. I do NOT think that our immigration policy is fair, but siting one wrong does not justify another.


Oh, BTW, the Asians are outnumbering the Mexicans now (FYI), both legally and not.

(DNR, but just a quick google link)
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-n...cs-as-largest-wave-of-new-immigrants-to-us-2/

Show me where I said that you said that!

You were the one that brough up the same ole tired line of "but but but it is not fair for those little babies....not their fault", well, I countered that with it is EVEN MORE NOT FAIR for those LEGALS that are waiting in line for years and spend a small fortune to do the right thing. LOL @ " they are going back with mommy and daddy". Did you see all the cries/signs of "Don't break up our family, why you guys are so mean and heartless"? Or was that just a make up lie from the xenophobic racists?

Since when we as a sovereign nation have to worry about the FAIRNESS for those ILLEGALS? Why should we make it FAIR for them unskilled ILLEGALS while make it UNFAIR for those skilled LEGALS? Did we try to make it fair in the late 80s with Reagan's amnesty program? Please tell us how was it? Do we have more or less ILLEGALS now? Do the same thing and expect different result = insane.

Again, why even bother to have immigration law? Might as well declare = ILLEGALS ..opps, so insensitive of me :biggrin:..UNDOCUMENTED = si, LEGALS = no, salir.

See my posts above with not one, not two, but several links about sovereign nations around the world cracking down on ILLEGALS. Please post a link or two about developed countries that are catering/pandering to ILLEGALS as Obama is doing now.

I saw that story too. Obviously, they did not count ALL of the ILLEGALS. Just ask anyone that live nearby the borders such as Southern CA, AZ, TX and they will tell you what racial makeup of those ILLEGALS (hint, not Asians for sure).

Sources (liberal) to back me up = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41371038/ns/us_news-life/t/number-illegal-immigrants-holds-steady-us/

Mexicans make up the majority of the illegal immigrant population at 58 percent, or 6.5 million. They are followed by people from other Latin American countries at 23 percent, or 2.6 million; Asia at 11 percent or 1.3 million; Europe and Canada at 4 percent or 500,000; and African countries and other nations at 3 percent, or 400,000.

 

[werepossum]

This reminds me of the criticism of Obama for not under-prioritizing enforcement of the marijuana laws, when there was a federal crackdown on medical pot in California last year. It seems that under-prioritizing enforcement is OK, or even preferred, when it's a law we don't like, but when it's a law we do like, then under prioritizing is of course an outrage.

This is NOT under-prioritizing enforcement, it's changing the law. Illegal aliens are barred by law from applying for green cards; those are for people who wish to come here legally. Obama did not just say we're going to stop seeking out illegals who were brought here as children, he specifically changed the law to implement part of the Dream Act. And he did it not by citing the existing legal exemptions such as government oppression if deported, but simply because he thinks the Dream Act should have been passed. (We all know he really did it to get votes - Hispandering - but for the moment let's all chuckle and pretend to give him the benefit of the doubt.) The equivalent for marijuana would be if he suddenly decided that illegal aliens brought here as children could now legally smoke marijuana, giving them a privilege which they are legally barred from having.

Again, it's not "We're going to stop looking for and deporting these people", it's "We're going to treat these people as if the law had changed" - effectively changing the law.

 

[werepossum]

This is only a short term measure to allow certain people who we would like to be in the US legally to work and go to school.

Really the basic solution seems like it would be simple. The specifics wouldn't be, but would be very doable.

Step 1. Secure the borders, you would need to look at good solutions and how much they would cost.

Step 2. Create a path so that those who we would like to stay here are able to have a path to do that without fear of being deported.

Step 3. Create a system to check legal status, and efficient deportation of those illegals that we don't want to have in the US.


Seems like if you did a quality job of these three things you would get a system that would work.

I agree completely, that would be a perfect solution. But until #1 is accomplished, #2 is only encouraging more illegal immigration when we cannot provide enough jobs for our existing citizens and #3 is pointless.

 

[Paul98]

I agree completely, that would be a perfect solution. But until #1 is accomplished, #2 is only encouraging more illegal immigration when we cannot provide enough jobs for our existing citizens and #3 is pointless.

Yep that is why it's step 1 for a permanent solution.

Though I can support what Obama did simply due to who would qualify, and for how long.

Now if the government wasn't so stupid and partisan maybe they would start working on a permanent solution, but I won't hold my breath.

I would also think that after the permanent solution is up and running for a few or so years the cost would start coming down due to far fewer illegals trying to come. Along with far fewer still needing deportation and checks. The cost would drop greatly on parts 2 and 3, and focus would be on the border.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Svlna, if illegal << legal it does not matter who is the biggest.

But whatever. Point missed.

 

[Svnla]

Svlna, if illegal << legal it does not matter who is the biggest.

But whatever. Point missed.

I am not here to play syntax/words game/nitty picky/little details game.

I am here to debate ILLEGALS vs. LEGALS.

In summary: (feel free to dispute with links/sources)

1. No sovereign country on Earth is pandering/giving breaks to ILLEGALS (see my many links from above posts) but US via Obama.
2. Why even bother to have or enforce immigration law?
3. Why reward ILLEGALS/law breakers and punish LEGALS/law followers? Why reward unskilled, uneducated peasants and punish skilled and well educated LEGALS? We did try once with ILLEGALS in 80s with Reagan and we all know the result.
4. If finish high school and other easy requirements such as less than 30 years old, live in US for 5 years, etc., then why not give breaks to people from Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.? Those folks have a tough life and sob stories too, why not them but Hispanics? Nothing to do with votes and 2012 election...riiiiiigggghttt :whiste:
5. Obama said this was the right thing to do, why didn't he do it in 08 or 09? Why now? Oh, just a coincidence..then Elvis is still alive too...gotcha. :biggrin:

 

[ModerateRepZero]

This president just did a big f$&$ you to all the LEGAL high school and college students who just graduated in the last few weeks now get to compete with another newly legalized 800,000 job applicants

Strange, I seem to recall that you have to be work-authorized (generally US Citizen or a lawful permanent resident) in order to legally get a job. Not automatically deporting illegal immigrants simply means that there's less fear of punishment in soliciting unlawful work.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I am not here to play syntax/words game/nitty picky/little details game.

But you do.


In summary: (feel free to dispute with links/sources)

1. No sovereign country on Earth is pandering/giving breaks to ILLEGALS (see my many links from above posts) but US via Obama.

Yep. It is all Obama. Obama is the Devil. NOBODY gives amnesty to applicants getting into a country.

K.

2. Why even bother to have or enforce immigration law?

Irrelevant.

3. Why reward ILLEGALS/law breakers and punish LEGALS/law followers? Why reward unskilled, uneducated peasants and punish skilled and well educated LEGALS? We did try once with ILLEGALS in 80s with Reagan and we all know the result.

This is granting a reprieve from the deadline. The only thing that has been postulated is the possibility of giving kids that have been brought over citizens. Not just a "drop the baby over the line and "poof"" system either.

4. If finish high school and other easy requirements such as less than 30 years old, live in US for 5 years, etc., then why not give breaks to people from Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.?

You answer me that. Why not? So because others are treated unfairly, they should too.

K.

Those folks have a tough life and sob stories too, why not them but Hispanics? Nothing to do with votes and 2012 election...riiiiiigggghttt :whiste:

EVERYTHING has to do with politics when you are the president.

Including what dog you get.

5. Obama said this was the right thing to do, why didn't he do it in 08 or 09? Why now? Oh, just a coincidence..then Elvis is still alive too...gotcha. :biggrin:

Elvis is a stupid tag for this. And I suppose if he did this in 09 he would have gotten acceptance from you?

Pointless.

 

[Svnla]

But you do.

In summary: (feel free to dispute with links/sources)

Yep. It is all Obama. Obama is the Devil. NOBODY gives amnesty to applicants getting into a country.

K.

Irrelevant.

This is granting a reprieve from the deadline. The only thing that has been postulated is the possibility of giving kids that have been brought over citizens. Not just a "drop the baby over the line and "poof"" system either.


You answer me that. Why not? So because others are treated unfairly, they should too.

K.


EVERYTHING has to do with politics when you are the president.

Including what dog you get.



Elvis is a stupid tag for this. And I suppose if he did this in 09 he would have gotten acceptance from you?

Pointless.

See my posts about my displeasure with the huge amnesty program under Republican President in the 80s. Not everyone is biased and partisian hack, shocking eh?

So still no link(s) to dispute any of my points? For example, developed countries giving breaks to ILLEGALS would be a good start.

You were saying something about "Irrelevant", "Pointless"?

Please try harder next time with a link or two. Gracias, senor. 😀

 

[nobodyknows]

So as long as they came here while under 16.

What about the parents - is he going to kick those out?

All this is going to do is start setting a precedent for families to get the children up to the US as quickly as possible.

And what is defined as a serious misdemeanor?

The bleeding hearts won't be happy until they turn this country into a shithole like Mexico

 

[woolfe9999]

This is NOT under-prioritizing enforcement, it's changing the law. Illegal aliens are barred by law from applying for green cards; those are for people who wish to come here legally. Obama did not just say we're going to stop seeking out illegals who were brought here as children, he specifically changed the law to implement part of the Dream Act. And he did it not by citing the existing legal exemptions such as government oppression if deported, but simply because he thinks the Dream Act should have been passed. (We all know he really did it to get votes - Hispandering - but for the moment let's all chuckle and pretend to give him the benefit of the doubt.) The equivalent for marijuana would be if he suddenly decided that illegal aliens brought here as children could now legally smoke marijuana, giving them a privilege which they are legally barred from having.

Again, it's not "We're going to stop looking for and deporting these people", it's "We're going to treat these people as if the law had changed" - effectively changing the law.

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

 

[nobodyknows]

lol, that is a great example but not for the reasons you think.

The IRS already does exactly what you're saying. They have limited resources and therefore prioritize enforcement actions on certain groups over others.

Do you always try to compare apples to oranges?

 

[nehalem256]

lol, that is a great example but not for the reasons you think.

The IRS already does exactly what you're saying. They have limited resources and therefore prioritize enforcement actions on certain groups over others.

And has a President ever come out and said that if certain groups of people cheated on their taxes in certain ways that the IRS will not come after them?

Would you think doing so was a good idea?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you always try to compare apples to oranges?

You're going to have to specify.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

And has a President ever come out and said that if certain groups of people cheated on their taxes in certain ways that the IRS will not come after them?

Would you think doing so was a good idea?

Not the best example, IRS has done this before.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=235699,00.html

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

See my posts about my displeasure with the huge amnesty program under Republican President in the 80s. Not everyone is biased and partisian hack, shocking eh?

So still no link(s) to dispute any of my points? For example, developed countries giving breaks to ILLEGALS would be a good start.

You were saying something about "Irrelevant", "Pointless"?

Please try harder next time with a link or two. Gracias, senor. 😀

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.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

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.