Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
The IRS has handed out cards to the millions he approved for years, and they are basically paying taxes from that and living like everyone else before the order.

Get over yourselves anyone pissed about it, millions that have been living here in the US a long time get some validation.

They aren't going away, they have been busting their asses like anyone else for decades in some cases, and it should have been done long ago.

I remember this issue from the 70's, as I've stated in a few threads, it should have been resolved long before now.

Lots of people in government have benefited even from nothing being done about it over the years, even employing "illegals", ya know.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Repeal posse comitatus, pass a constitutional amendment, and forcibly relocate millions of people. So easy!
And of course, we can defend on government to do all of this cheaply, effectively, and without accidentally deporting any legal citizens, right?
If we are truly unable to use our military to enforce our borders, like every other nation on Earth - hell, like we do for other nations' borders - then we deserve to fall and become la Republica del Norte. No nation that fucking stupid should survive.

Those non-Hispanics who find a socialist redistributionist society ideal might be allowed to stay. (If you pay a special tax, and maybe wear a gold star.) For the rest of us . . .

Well, let's hope Canada has the same guilt over its "border region" as do we.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Um, illegals aren't American citizens, sunshine. Please try to keep up.
While we're deporting millions of people, it is entirely reasonable to expect that some legal citizens will be inadvertently deported (and in the process be separated from their families and have all their assets seized).
What safeguards do you propose to prevent this kind of government abuse? Or will they just be collateral damage for the greater good?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I want to know specifically what you would do if the required modifications to the constitution were made amending the 14th and allowing ex post facto government legal action were made. Presumably the states their parents are from would not allow them in even if their parents were permitted to return (I'm highly dubious about even this).

You have millions of stateless people in government custody and nobody will take them. What do you do?

Again, why should the US (the host) bear the burden of taking care/be responsible of these million and million of ILLEGALS? They KNOWINGLY sneaked in/overstayed here ILLEGALLY, they should pay the heavy penalty. That's NOT OUR PROBLEM if they are stateless and no one wants them. We should enforce immigration law as any sovereign nation on Earth should do. See my post above with links with several suggestions of what we should do but until the house is on fire, nothing dramatic will get done from D and R parties.

I am not sure of anything but 100% sure of this. We continue to give amnesty and give 1/2 ass effort to solve this huge ILLEGAL immigration problem, we will (not if but when) continue to have even more ILLEGALS soon. See the big amnesty in 1980s and several small ones after that. Remember the promise of border security and no more ILLEGALS? See the result now? And now we are going to do the same thing and expect different result? Ain't happening.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
While we're deporting millions of people, it is entirely reasonable to expect that some legal citizens will be inadvertently deported (and in the process be separated from their families and have all their assets seized).
What safeguards do you propose to prevent this kind of government abuse? Or will they just be collateral damage for the greater good?
Why would that be a reasonable expectation? It's not like we're talking about a big truck with cattle catchers driven down streets with Spanish names on its stores.

More to the point, absolutely no one is expecting that millions of illegals will ever be deported.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Why would that be a reasonable expectation? It's not like we're talking about a big truck with cattle catchers driven down streets with Spanish names on its stores.

More to the point, absolutely no one is expecting that millions of illegals will ever be deported.

Are you serious?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
If we are truly unable to use our military to enforce our borders, like every other nation on Earth - hell, like we do for other nations' borders - then we deserve to fall and become la Republica del Norte. No nation that fucking stupid should survive.

Those non-Hispanics who find a socialist redistributionist society ideal might be allowed to stay. (If you pay a special tax, and maybe wear a gold star.) For the rest of us . . .

Well, let's hope Canada has the same guilt over its "border region" as do we.

I'm sure that our military will have no troubles whatsoever defending our border from the Mexican army, should that ever be required.

Otherwise, you're spouting paranoid nonsense.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
I'm sure that our military will have no troubles whatsoever defending our border from the Mexican army, should that ever be required.

Otherwise, you're spouting paranoid nonsense.

It IS required, and yet we havent done it.

Ergo, we're going to lose.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Ya know what, I'm 100% behind kicking any gang banger type, etc straight out of the country.

It;s like infiltration on different levels.

The millions that have all ready been living here paying taxes and having families that are raised here etc I'd like to get some recognition.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
It IS required, and yet we havent done it.

Ergo, we're going to lose.
Nativists have been saying that for nearly 200 years and we still haven't lost. Quite the opposite, in fact. Our long tradition of virtually unchecked immigration is one of things that has made America the greatest nation in history.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ya know what, I'm 100% behind kicking any gang banger type, etc straight out of the country.

It;s like infiltration on different levels.

The millions that have all ready been living here paying taxes and having families that are raised here etc I'd like to get some recognition.
To what end? Our border has been purposely made porous, so kicking someone out of the country is more political cover than actual action.

Beyond that, how are we to determine if an illegal is a gang banger? Obama has made secondary priority such sterling proto-citizens as those convicted of drunk driving, sexual abuse or exploitation, drug dealing, and gun offences. So if gangbangers can somehow avoid committing crimes while wearing a jacket proclaiming "I'm a violent gang member" then they should be pretty safe from the mild inconvenience of deportation. (I say mild inconvenience assuming that identified gang members get more than a self-deportation letter - not exactly a safe assumption nowadays.) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...ot-top-deportation-priorities/article/2556517

Shit, being an illegal seems to be almost a get out of jail free card under Obama. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-154-immigrants-murder-convictions/?page=all
The Obama administration says it had no choice but to release almost all of the 169 immigrants with homicide convictions that were let back onto the streets last year, claiming court decisions gave officials no choice in the matter — but it’s promising a new system to better screen who gets let out.

Of the 169 immigrants with homicide-related convictions released in fiscal year 2013, all but 15 were required to be let go because of specific court orders or because the immigrants had been held for too long under the rules established by a sweeping 2001 Supreme Court case, the Homeland Security Department said in an Aug. 15 letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Thomas S. Winkowski said they’re changing the rules to make sure a senior supervisor screens the release of those kinds of immigrants in the future.

SEE ALSO: Campaign groups promise immigration showdown in 2014 elections

PHOTOS: Politicians in prison: Public servants who've served time

• Sign the petition to declare you oppose a government takeover of the Internet

“Ensuring that our enforcement policies and procedures are best suited to protect[ing] national security and public safety is paramount,” Mr. Winkowski told Mr. Grassley. “To make certain that we are doing everything we can in this regard, I am instituting new procedures requiring that an appropriate senior-level supervisor must approve before ICE releases potentially dangerous individuals.”

The 116 murderers were a fraction of the 36,007 criminals ICE released in 2013. The criminals had convictions ranging from homicide and manslaughter to drunken driving and sex crimes.

ICE says many of those it released were subject to some form of monitoring while out on the streets, such as an ankle bracelet. Others were required to call in to verify their whereabouts.

Mr. Grassley, though, said the administration needs to do more to warn localities that potentially dangerous criminals have been sent to live near them.

“The public needs to know when a person in the country illegally, and who has been convicted of a homicide, is released into their communities,” said the Iowa lawmaker and ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to data from ICE, the murderers are “associated” with 134 communities in the U.S. It was unclear whether that meant that’s where they were released or whether that’s where they currently reside.

California led the list with murderers associated with 48 different ZIP codes, including one in tony Beverly Hills and another in Murietta, a community that saw rallies objecting to plans to use the area to house some of the illegal immigrant children surging across the border in recent months.

New York City alone had 11 locations associated with the released murderers, spanning four of the five boroughs.

Even states not traditionally thought of as destinations for immigrants, such as Kentucky, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, each had one location associated with a released murderer, while Alaska, Iowa and Louisiana each had two localities.

The Obama administration says its hands are tied by the 2001 court decision, the Zadvydas case, which ruled that most immigration detention is not supposed to be punitive — meaning immigrants cannot be held indefinitely.

That means that when governments refuse to take back their citizens, the U.S. government is stuck in a bind and usually has to release them onto its streets. Mr. Winkowski said that decision and other court orders were responsible for 154 of the 169 releases.

Of the 169, Mr. Winkowski said one was granted voluntary departure and has left the country. He didn’t say what has happened to the others, and ICE officials declined to comment beyond what was in the letter.

Mr. Grassley has introduced legislation to clarify the law and let authorities continue to detain dangerous criminal immigrants.

And immigration experts said the Obama administration already has some tools it could use to force other countries to take their citizens back, including suspending diplomatic relations or curbing visas to come to the U.S. for government officials or citizens of recalcitrant countries.

“This administration hasn’t pursued that possibility, and State Department people don’t want to raise the issue because State Department feels immigration is small potatoes; they’ve got bigger fish to fry,” said Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple University and former high-ranking official at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Mr. Ting also said the Zadvydas ruling allowed exceptions for dangerous immigrants and said the government should vigorously use those exceptions to keep hardened criminals off the streets.

ICE had initially said it was required to release 75 percent of murderers, then reduced that number to 72 percent. But the latest letter boosts that calculation to 91 percent.

Mr. Grassley had asked for more details on the murderers, including the judge and court that had ordered the release. Mr. Winkowski said his agency didn’t keep those statistics and said that would have to come from the Justice Department.

Mr. Grassley had also asked what conditions were placed on each convict who was released, but Mr. Winkowski didn’t address that in his letter.
If we can't even get murderers deported, our nation deserve to fall. That's the beauty of a democracy - we get the leadership we deserve. In this case, it's leadership that sees classifying murderers as dangerous as a bridge too far; the real problem in Obama's eyes is our lack of government welcoming committees.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Our long tradition of virtually unchecked immigration is one of things that has made America the greatest nation in history.

WTF are you talking about? The US had had various restrictions and quotas /caps in place since the at least the late 19th century. It is extremely difficult (too difficult IMO) for people to immigrate here legally and the caps are tiny compared to our population.

If you want to argue for totally a totally unregulated immigration policy go right ahead but please don't make ridiculous claims about our history to support your argument.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Nativists have been saying that for nearly 200 years and we still haven't lost. Quite the opposite, in fact. Our long tradition of virtually unchecked immigration is one of things that has made America the greatest nation in history.
Dude, your ignorance is showing. We have not had "virtually unchecked immigration" since 1790. We've had periods where we excluded various groups (sometimes based on race such as barring Africans or Chinese, sometimes based on culture such as with southern and eastern Europeans), periods where we intentionally invited in many immigrants (oftimes the same groups we previously excluded) when we needed labor, periods where we restricted immigration to a trickle to assimilate large groups. Every American SHOULD know this.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nCrRKXs7WpKep64ltZODWLA&bvm=bv.80185997,d.eXY


Fantasy, please meet reality. This is your progressive utopia.

UNDER SIEGE: Fear on the Border in Fort Hancock, TX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQoPOY0t8Hw
Coming to a town near you, courtesy of the Democrat Party (and the leadership of the Republican Party.)
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Nativists have been saying that for nearly 200 years and we still haven't lost. Quite the opposite, in fact. Our long tradition of virtually unchecked immigration is one of things that has made America the greatest nation in history.


The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major law restricting immigration to the United States. It was enacted in response to economic fears, especially on the West Coast, where native-born Americans attributed unemployment and declining wages to Chinese workers whom they also viewed as racially inferior. The Chinese Exclusion Act, signed into law on May 6, 1882, by President Chester A. Arthur, effectively halted Chinese immigration for ten years and prohibited Chinese from becoming US citizens.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/exclusion.html
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,797
48,501
136
Repeal posse comitatus, pass a constitutional amendment, and forcibly relocate millions of people. So easy!
And of course, we can defend on government to do all of this cheaply, effectively, and without accidentally deporting any legal citizens, right?

Might as well take out the part about cruel and unusual punishment too while we're at it. I mean some Americans might decide to shelter illegals from the brand spanking new police state that was just created. More persuasive means might be needed to make them talk, in the name of patriotism.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,797
48,501
136
Are you serious?

People who don't trust the government to do anything suddenly trust it to do everything perfectly when their pet solution is proposed. The ironing is quite thick today.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
To what end? Our border has been purposely made porous, so kicking someone out of the country is more political cover than actual action.

Beyond that, how are we to determine if an illegal is a gang banger? Obama has made secondary priority such sterling proto-citizens as those convicted of drunk driving, sexual abuse or exploitation, drug dealing, and gun offences. So if gangbangers can somehow avoid committing crimes while wearing a jacket proclaiming "I'm a violent gang member" then they should be pretty safe from the mild inconvenience of deportation. (I say mild inconvenience assuming that identified gang members get more than a self-deportation letter - not exactly a safe assumption nowadays.) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...ot-top-deportation-priorities/article/2556517

Shit, being an illegal seems to be almost a get out of jail free card under Obama. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-154-immigrants-murder-convictions/?page=all

If we can't even get murderers deported, our nation deserve to fall. That's the beauty of a democracy - we get the leadership we deserve. In this case, it's leadership that sees classifying murderers as dangerous as a bridge too far; the real problem in Obama's eyes is our lack of government welcoming committees.

I'm part Lenape, everyone get out of my country right now.

How about if you have no Native American heritage at all get the fuck out of here :p

I'm just saying....
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Repeal posse comitatus, pass a constitutional amendment, and forcibly relocate millions of people. So easy!
And of course, we can defend on government to do all of this cheaply, effectively, and without accidentally deporting any legal citizens, right?

lol@forcibly deporting millions of American citizens. And they call Obama the secret authoritarian commie.

3.) Once One and Two are both completed (not after, and not just one or the other), pass legislation dealing with the tens of millions of illegals here (the 12M number is laughable). My preference would be to deport them all, including US citizen minors of illegal parents - they can go be with their illegal parents in Mexico until they're 18, and then choose to come back here or not. Recognizing that a sufficient sheeple number of our populous is too PC to take this approach, my compromise (and it's a massive compromise) is to allow the illegals to remain in temp guest worker status as they take their place in line with all the other people legally trying to enter the US. Their penance for entering and staying here as illegals will be that, and it is getting off pretty lightly IMO.

Now that that's cleared up, what is the next whine given so few want Open Borders (as that would be infinitely stupid)?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I'm part Lenape, everyone get out of my country right now.

How about if you nave no Native American heritage at all get the fuck out of here :p

Each and every time someone uses the Native American example to argue against not doing Open Borders/quasi-Open Borders, it evokes scream laughs from the rest of us. Think long and hard on why using that as an example is so f*cking stupid...
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Anyone who even utters the word sheeple is immediately not worth listening to after that point.

My brain automatically turns them off I think.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Each and every time someone uses the Native American example to argue against not doing Open Borders/quasi-Open Borders, it evokes scream laughs from the rest of us. Think long and hard on why using that as an example is so f*cking stupid...

Who is the us you refer to ?

There is a group of us I'm not privy to ?

Both of my Grandmothers were German, one was a 1/4 Lenape and one Grandfather was English and the other Welsh.

Tell me who us is.

Think long and hard over making stupid comments.
 
Last edited:

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,797
48,501
136
3.) Once One and Two are both completed (not after, and not just one or the other), pass legislation dealing with the tens of millions of illegals here (the 12M number is laughable). My preference would be to deport them all, including US citizen minors of illegal parents - they can go be with their illegal parents in Mexico until they're 18, and then choose to come back here or not. Recognizing that a sufficient sheeple number of our populous is too PC to take this approach, my compromise (and it's a massive compromise) is to allow the illegals to remain in temp guest worker status as they take their place in line with all the other people legally trying to enter the US. Their penance for entering and staying here as illegals will be that, and it is getting off pretty lightly IMO.

Now that that's cleared up, what is the next whine given so few want Open Borders (as that would be infinitely stupid)?

You would still have to permanently waive posse comitatus and repeal the 14th by the amendment process. Removing the restrictions from deploying the US military against the American populace is probably not a wise move. I even recall defending Bush of all people for not sending in the Army to New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath because it violates the law and is a terrible terrible idea in the first place.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
You would still have to permanently waive posse comitatus and repeal the 14th by the amendment process. Removing the restrictions from deploying the US military against the American populace is probably not a wise move. I even recall defending Bush of all people for not sending in the Army to New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath because it violates the law and is a terrible terrible idea in the first place.

This is true, but they still sent a lot of Blackwater there.

Not sure private mercenaries are much better, and they are still flourishing.