Obama to stop deporting illegals, and give them work permits [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama to stop deporting illegals, and give them work permits


WWJBD
06-15-2012, 08:21
http://leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238478-us-to-stop-deporting-and-grant-work-permits-to-younger-illegal-immigrants?lite

I dont like to use foul language alot, but I must honestly say.

**** you Obama.

Says it may affect 800,000 illegal aliens....ya right, maybe in Texas alone.....more like 8 million.

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 08:26
Dang it.

Immigration by presidential edict,instead of congress. :burn:

Politics 101.'08

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 08:29
And by executive fiat, no less. Constitution...what's that?

The silver lining is that the many thousands if not more unemployed people in the swing states now have a brand new reason to vote Obama out.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 08:29
That whole checks-and-balances thing between Congress and the executive office doesn't seem to be working so well.


.

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 08:30
Next,will those employers get fried for knowingly hiring illegals?.'08. :dunno:

aircarver
06-15-2012, 08:38
It appears he's going to run wild... until tackled to the ground ....

.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 08:41
It appears he's going to run wild... until tackled to the ground ....

.


Yeah...I love the D.U. drones who come onto this forum claiming to be "moderate centrists," and declaring Obama to be the same... :upeyes:


.

WWJBD
06-15-2012, 08:44
I probably should have mentioned when I started this thread why this upsets me MORE than most.

I am actually married to a LEGAL immigrant, I have spent almost $40,000 in fees and attorneys, and almost 11 years to make her a citizen, and this makes me absolutely sick. Most of them will never know the hardships of actually trying to do it the right way.

They will never know what it actually took my wife to become an American, build your credit at starting at age 27 from a blank slate, having no relationships with anyone, paying taxes even when you reap none of the rewards of being a citizen, and all while doing it with a smile on her face.

Instead they get free healthcare, free education, and now they can work legally as well. Well kiss my ass, do any of these "immigrants" even know what it cost to get an I-9 H1B Work Visa.....NO because they don't give a ****, and now they get rewarded for it.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 08:51
Coincidence... Nah...
http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/lifestyle/TIME Magazine Cover June.jpg

Time Magazine 'Covers' Undocumented Immigrants (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2012/06/14/time-magazine-covers-undocumented-immigrants/)

janice6
06-15-2012, 08:53
No need to checkj with Congress or the voting people. Obama is smarter and therefore more qualified to decide what we need and what we can have. He's the man now.

He has assumed the power to rule by edict. We have no say now.

What a mess he will leave us.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 08:54
I probably should have mentioned when I started this thread why this upsets me MORE than most.

...



Belated congratulations to your wife (and you!) for her hard-earned privilege. :thumbsup:

I worked with a lovely and incredibly hard-working lady from Kazakhstan who, like your wife, went through the proverbial hoops to achieve her legal citizenship. Without a doubt, legal immgrants hate the notion of a backdoor pass to citizenship more than anyone -- and justifiably so!


.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 08:56
No need to checkj with Congress or the voting people. Obama is smarter and therefore more qualified to decide what we need and what we can have. He's the man now.

He has assumed the power to rule by edict. We have no say now.

What a mess he will leave us.


Somehow, this ties in to that other thread about the secret talks the Obama administration has been having with multinational corporations to operate outside of U.S. law...


.

SpectreRider
06-15-2012, 09:00
Quick, someone tell me again that we are a constitutional republic operating under the rule of law.


I can't seem to get to that conclusion by observation.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 09:02
Obama is nailing his own coffin shut.

First, the "private sector is doing just fine".
Then, he criticizes Romney for wanting to cut taxes.
Now, he wants to give work permits to illegal trespassers.

Does he even want to be re-elected?

..

aircarver
06-15-2012, 09:02
Somehow, this ties in to that other thread about the secret talks the Obama administration has been having with multinational corporations to operate outside of U.S. law...


.

'After my election, I will have more flexibility" .... :upeyes:

.

callihan_44
06-15-2012, 09:03
next up, get em registered to vote :steamed: The country has been sold out by the politicians

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 09:04
Belated congratulations to your wife (and you!) for her hard-earned privilege. :thumbsup:

I worked with a lovely and incredibly hard-working lady from Kazakhstan who, like your wife, went through the proverbial hoops to achieve her legal citizenship. Without a doubt, legal immgrants hate the notion of a backdoor pass to citizenship more than anyone -- and justifiably so!


.

Good jumping off point for wondering if this action can be used to actually split the base Obama is trying to rally. How many people have come here legally and are incensed by this...?

JFrame
06-15-2012, 09:04
'After my election, I will have more flexibility" .... :upeyes:

.


Yeah -- it looks like WE'RE the ones that would need the extra flexibility, to bend over farther... :upeyes:


.

JAS104
06-15-2012, 09:06
Nice. He would do this.
He can pretty much enact any legislation he wants, huh?
Pretty sure the only reason he hasn't nationally banned tobacco is that he smokes.

What to do. What to do.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 09:08
Its funny. I've had progressives tell me that Obama is/was a constitutional scholar. I tell them sure he is, he studied how to destroy it from within...

"... generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
- Barack Obama 2001

JAS104
06-15-2012, 09:09
What the hell does he know about states liberties lol.
Talk about big federal government, you got it, baby.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 09:12
Good jumping off point for wondering if this action can be used to actually split the base Obama is trying to rally. How many people have come here legally and are incensed by this...?

Interesting point...

I wonder if ALL the legal immigrants from parts of the world not called Mexico or Central America would comprise a sufficent bloc to constitute any sort of counter-narrative against the illegals? :dunno:

(Not to discount the legal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, of course...)


.

Fred Hansen
06-15-2012, 09:14
It appears he's going to run wild... until tackled to the ground ....

.Drop-kicked through the Goal Posts of Life would be better...


Just sayin'. :supergrin: :wavey:

Fred Hansen
06-15-2012, 09:18
That whole checks-and-balances thing between Congress and the executive office doesn't seem to be working so well.


.If Boo-Hoo Boehner wasn't such a weepy little useless ****, things might be different. We need one hell of a drop-kicker.

Little Joe
06-15-2012, 09:20
Not unexpected from the ethnos president.

SpectreRider
06-15-2012, 09:25
If only there were some sort of authoritative written document that would spell out the role of each of the branches of government then a president could not rule by decree.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 09:29
If only there were some sort of authoritative written document that would spell out the role of each of the branches of government then a president could not rule by decree.


:rofl:

Yeah -- if only...


.

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 09:48
Good jumping off point for wondering if this action can be used to actually split the base Obama is trying to rally. How many people have come here legally and are incensed by this...?

A ton Goalie,a metric ton.'08.

Deployment Solu
06-15-2012, 09:51
If we don't act our conscious this Nov, we may never get a chance to do it again. This clown and his entire administration needs to go!!!!

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 09:59
Interesting how just as Fast and Furious was starting to pick up some MSM traction this gets dropped, on a Friday no less. The media will run with this for the next few days taking the spot light off of the Fast and Furious scandle.

callihan_44
06-15-2012, 10:25
Alan West is the only repub I've heard say anything about this so far..:dunno:

wjv
06-15-2012, 10:27
I probably should have mentioned when I started this thread why this upsets me MORE than most.

I am actually married to a LEGAL immigrant, I have spent almost $40,000 in fees and attorneys, and almost 11 years to make her a citizen, and this makes me absolutely sick.

My daughters are legal immigrants. Cost about $20K each to bring them here LEGALLY.

If I had only known, I could have saved all that money!

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 10:30
Damn Bill.'08. :animlol:

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 10:33
Just last year Obama was saying he couldn't do this (http://unitedwedream.org/2011/05/01/obama-continues-to-deport-dreamers/):

When Ramos asked a follow-up question about granting formal administrative relief to undocumented youth, Obama was even more forceful: ďThere are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.Ē

What changed between then and now? Oh, wait, yes. Rhymes with Smelecshun.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 11:09
Next the President will probably announce some form student loan amnesty and or home loan amnesty now that he's thrown a shout out to his La Raza constituents.

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 11:12
This measure may well be meant for Fla and the voter purge they're conducting.'08.

Bravo 1
06-15-2012, 11:22
He needs all the votes he can get.

And since when did he care about laws?

SPIN2010
06-15-2012, 11:31
next up, get em registered to vote :steamed: The country has been sold out by the politicians

Fact! It is a last ditch effort for votes. I hope the next president has the will to pursue this illegal action by the kenyan and convict him of this crime ... I wonder how many of these illegals will turn eighteen by November?

jeanderson
06-15-2012, 12:01
While I don't agree with the policy of giving amnesty (that's what this is), it's the PROCESS that really makes me boil :steamed:.

Obama looks more like a dictator every day. If he manages to be re-elected, and congress becomes totally Republican, you'll see a lot more of this.

I wonder how the chronically unemployed view this? Especially since the 99-week extension on benefits will be up shortly. Maybe this will backfire on him.

cowboywannabe
06-15-2012, 12:03
hell, theyre already voting for him, what did he have to gain by this?

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 12:06
hell, theyre already voting for him, what did he have to gain by this?

Obama's supporters are deserting him in droves.

Even his base of poor blacks are finally seeing the light of truth about him.

He's desperate for votes and getting more desperate everyday.

..

aircarver
06-15-2012, 12:06
Drop-kicked through the Goal Posts of Life would be better...


Just sayin'. :supergrin: :wavey:

Explains why he doesn't like Jesus ........:supergrin:

.

cowboywannabe
06-15-2012, 12:09
Obama's supporters are deserting him in droves.

Even his base of poor blacks are finally seeing the light of truth about him.

He's desperate for votes and getting more desperate everyday.

..

dont be fooled. with a 90% + rate, poor blacks as well as those who do not take welfare will vote for him because he is half black.

SpectreRider
06-15-2012, 12:09
The presidents poll numbers with hispanics had slipped badly.

That is what he hopes to gain from this.

cowboywannabe
06-15-2012, 12:13
The presidents poll numbers with hispanics had slipped badly.

That is what he hopes to gain from this.

latinos voting for obama must drop their catholic beliefs because you cant be catholic and for abortion.

also, what many latinos fail to see is that its not that they are here illegally, its the welfare increase, gangs, and failure to become American that bothers most.

i know its unrealistic to think every latino can be a Mark Rubio.

ModGlock17
06-15-2012, 12:14
The fallacy of doing this to get more brown votes this Nov. is: while you are sure to gain some browns, you will lose some whites and yellows who are "on the fence".

No need to explain why the whites don't like it.

The yellows, however, a slightly different story: MOST of them will wonder why they aren't treated with such privilege.

Some browns, he will lose as well.

cowboywannabe
06-15-2012, 12:16
The fallacy of doing this to get more brown votes this Nov. is: while you are sure to gain some browns, you will lose some whites and yellows who are "on the fence".

No need to explain why the whites don't like it.

The yellows, however, a slightly different story: MOST of them will wonder why they aren't treated with such privilege.

Some browns, he will lose as well.

the sad part is that color is the reason for the votes instead of our perpetuating fall.

aircarver
06-15-2012, 12:16
The yellows, however, a slightly different story: MOST of them will wonder why they aren't treated with such privilege.

They don't need it... They earn their way ....

.

TBO
06-15-2012, 12:31
He's just going after votes Americans won't give him.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

janice6
06-15-2012, 12:42
Great rationale, get new workers into a country that has a recession and can't find enough work for the citizens already there. What a thinker.

Work permits .....Work has nothing to do with it.

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 12:51
hell, theyre already voting for him, what did he have to gain by this?

A counter balance in case Rubio gets a phone call.'08.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 13:06
Reporter heckles Obama during presser...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reporter-heckles-obama-white-house-immigration-announcement_647290.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/reporter_shouts_at_obama_during_immigration_speech.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/reporter_shouts_at_obama_during_immigration_speech.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHfe7mZjiV0

"What about Americans that are already unemployed!"
:rofl:

engineer151515
06-15-2012, 13:09
Feel kinda like the Subway commercial . . .


Fire Chief: "When I finish this sandwich, I'll look for yours" (President)
Male Firefighter "OK" (Congress)
Lady Firefighter - disbelieving what she had just seen - "Wow . . . ." (American public)

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 13:52
No surprise... you guys immediately ignore the actual policy and devolve to name calling.

For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:




The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military.

...

The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship or even permanent legal status, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 13:54
For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:
For those interested in the facts of the matter, the New York Times isn't exactly the best recommended source. :whistling:

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 14:11
For those interested in the facts of the matter, the New York Times isn't exactly the best recommended source. :whistling:

Oh yeah, better consult newsmax or vdare or glenn beck... then you'll get the accurate picture.

aircarver
06-15-2012, 14:13
The Times and the rest of the MSM prostituted their reputations long ago .....:upeyes:

.

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 14:16
The Times and the rest of the MSM prostituted their reputations long ago .....:upeyes:

.

Ok then, what are the details of the policy... or do you even care.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 14:19
For those interested in the facts of the matter, the New York Times isn't exactly the best recommended source. :whistling:

I beg to differ -- if Jayson Blair isn't an example of ethical journalism...Uh, never mind...


.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 15:13
An MSNBC guest unsurprisingly throws the race card out when discussing the President being heckled by a reporter today...
"This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing president be doing this if we had a white president there?" MSNBC guest and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said on the channel this afternoon.

"I think it's a vert important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We've never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it's patently obvious," he said.
MSNBC Guest: Would A White President Get Heckled? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/msnbc_guest_would_a_white_president_get_heckled.html)

janice6
06-15-2012, 15:50
For saying the same thing? Damn right a white President would be heckled. This is BS.

rgregoryb
06-15-2012, 16:09
No surprise... you guys immediately ignore the actual policy and devolve to name calling.

For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:




The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military.

...

The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship or even permanent legal status, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

well aren't we lucky that a person like you is here to guide us in the right path. Too bad for the unemployed legals and citizens. This is your King trying to pander for votes..pure and simple, speaking of simple, how are you?

and take a dive at a rolling donut while you're at it.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 16:10
No surprise... you guys immediately ignore the actual policy and devolve to name calling.

For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:




The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military.

...

The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship or even permanent legal status, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

So, the illegals get to stay with no fear of deportation. Sounds like amnesty to me, amnesty by executive fiat no less. Congress, we don't need no steenkin congress.

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 16:40
So, the illegals get to stay with no fear of deportation. Sounds like amnesty to me, amnesty by executive fiat no less. Congress, we don't need no steenkin congress.

They were children when they were brought here, had no choice in the matter and have little or no connection to the countries they came from. They might not even speak the language. Deporting people under these circumstances is straight up wrong and borders on evil.

Maybe if congress had done the right thing then there would have been no need for the executive order. But the republican run congress has only shown a capacity for one thing: obstructionism.

engineer151515
06-15-2012, 16:41
So, the illegals get to stay with no fear of deportation. Sounds like amnesty to me, amnesty by executive fiat no less. Congress, we don't need no steenkin congress.

With repeated extensions. . . .

What a deal. Infinite perpetuity.

engineer151515
06-15-2012, 16:42
They were children when they were brought here, had no choice in the matter and have little or no connection to the countries they came from. They might not even speak the language. Deporting people under these circumstances is straight up wrong and borders on evil.

Maybe if congress had done the right thing then there would have been no need for the executive order. But the republican run congress has only shown a capacity for one thing: obstructionism.

Maybe the parents are responsible.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 16:44
They were children when they were brought here, had no choice in the matter and have little or no connection to the countries they came from. They might not even speak the language. Deporting people under these circumstances is straight up wrong and borders on evil.

Maybe if congress had done the right thing then there would have been no need for the executive order. But the republican run congress has only shown a capacity for one thing: obstructionism.

Breaking our laws is right and just then?

GAFinch
06-15-2012, 16:47
Ok then, what are the details of the policy... or do you even care.

Reagan proposed an amnesty program back in the 80's - shot down by Democrats. Republicans passed the DREAM Act, with similar requirements to our Dear Leader's edict, but the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected it back in 2010. Bush was criticized for overusing executive orders...the Dear Leader isn't even bothering to use them. That's our main problem with this.

Most Republicans are aware that you can't just suddenly deport 20 million illegal immigrants after 40 years of unofficial support of illegal immigration and are willing to work out a compromise, they just want the borders secured as well to make sure that an amnesty program doesn't encourage greater numbers of illegal immigration in the future. A bipartisan, constitutional effort is possible, Obama just isn't willing or able to take a leadership role in getting it done.

GAFinch
06-15-2012, 16:48
An MSNBC guest unsurprisingly throws the race card out when discussing the President being heckled by a reporter today...

MSNBC Guest: Would A White President Get Heckled? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/msnbc_guest_would_a_white_president_get_heckled.html)

"In previous administrations, some reporters used the tactic very effectively. ABCís Sam Donaldson, for example, was famous for his shouted questions to President George H.W. Bush."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/munro-obama-ignores-questions-about-controversial-de-facto-amnesty-decision/#ixzz1xuAgW997

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 16:52
With repeated extensions. . . .

What a deal. Infinite perpetuity.

Yeah, but it's not amnesty. They just get to stay here and stay here with no worries of deportation.

HexHead
06-15-2012, 16:53
The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship or even permanent legal status, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."


This is just step one. Next ACORN or whatever they're called now will get these illegals registered to vote. Why do you think the administration is fighting State's Voter ID laws so strongly?

0bama and Holder are dispicable

GAFinch
06-15-2012, 16:57
Oh yeah, better consult newsmax or vdare or glenn beck... then you'll get the accurate picture.

The last remaining Republican news junkies who still read the NYT abandoned it after that atrocious, indefensible editorial by Krugman concerning the bin Laden raid. The NYT has as much credibility nowadays as some random, unpaid HuffPo blogger.

ModGlock17
06-15-2012, 17:05
No surprise...

For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:



Yes. That's like going to Jake Carney/Al Sharpton/Jesse for facts and going to Holder to find justice for Brian Terry.

:rofl:

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 17:08
Maybe the parents are responsible.

The parents are responsible. Kids that were 15 or under obviously aren't.

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 17:10
Breaking our laws is right and just then?

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 17:23
Reagan proposed an amnesty program back in the 80's - shot down by Democrats. Republicans passed the DREAM Act, with similar requirements to our Dear Leader's edict, but the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected it back in 2010. Bush was criticized for overusing executive orders...the Dear Leader isn't even bothering to use them. That's our main problem with this.

Most Republicans are aware that you can't just suddenly deport 20 million illegal immigrants after 40 years of unofficial support of illegal immigration and are willing to work out a compromise, they just want the borders secured as well to make sure that an amnesty program doesn't encourage greater numbers of illegal immigration in the future. A bipartisan, constitutional effort is possible, Obama just isn't willing or able to take a leadership role in getting it done.

Could you write that to make Republicans look any better? :rofl:

It was filibustered in the Senate and died on the limb, despite years worth of Republican sponsorship, because of tea partiers. But somehow, in your analysis, it's all the Democrats fault.
:upeyes:

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 17:25
The last remaining Republican news junkies who still read the NYT abandoned it after that atrocious, indefensible editorial by Krugman concerning the bin Laden raid. The NYT has as much credibility nowadays as some random, unpaid HuffPo blogger.

Yes. That's like going to Jake Carney/Al Sharpton/Jesse for facts and going to Holder to find justice for Brian Terry.

:rofl:

Enjoy your blogs, I guess...

Jerry
06-15-2012, 17:29
Ok then, what are the details of the policy... or do you even care.

Actually I don't care. First, the president should not have (as far as I know does not have) the power to do something like this. Second, how many "Americans" are already out of work? And third, its a slap in the face to every immigrant that came here legally and worked their asses off to become citizens. If I'm not mistakes doesn't serving in the military give an alien a step up to becoming a citizen. So why should those that have not get the same benefit as those that have. This thing stinks to high heaven anyway you look at it.

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 17:44
They were children when they were brought here, had no choice in the matter and have little or no connection to the countries they came from. They might not even speak the language. Deporting people under these circumstances is straight up wrong and borders on evil.

Maybe if congress had done the right thing then there would have been no need for the executive order. But the republican run congress has only shown a capacity for one thing: obstructionism.

So to clarify, in your view Congress is only to act in an advisory capacity and the President may act unilaterally, especially on matters he deems to be "the right thing."

How is that not tyranny? The New York Times isn't clear. :rofl:

ozark-tracker
06-15-2012, 17:57
I have a coupla of black friends that now feel like Obama just made them 3rd class citizens by giving the mexicans work visa's and announcing that they won't be deported, they feel like this gives the mexicans a foot up over the blacks,

oscarthegrouch
06-15-2012, 17:59
The parents are responsible. Kids that were 15 or under obviously aren't.

So, if my father stole a million dollars from a company you owned, when I was 15, and left the money to me, and you found out, you wouldn't demand the money back, since it wasn't my fault?

callihan_44
06-15-2012, 18:08
Oh yeah, better consult newsmax or vdare or glenn beck... then you'll get the accurate picture.

QUESTION:what do you now say to those who stood in line and followed the letter of the law that want to come here? Stay put because the fence jumpers jumped ahead of you? I would prefer to let someone in who respected us enough to follow the rules , the person willing to go through the red tape tells me they will appreciate being here.

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 18:17
QUESTION:what do you now say to those who stood in line and followed the letter of the law that want to come here? Stay put because the fence jumpers jumped ahead of you? I would prefer to let someone in who respected us enough to follow the rules , the person willing to go through the red tape tells me they will appreciate being here.

This is key, and it's actually worse than you suggest. Because the USCIS is funded by fees and not taxes, and because these amnesty-in-all-but-name applications likely won't have fees attached, that means adjudicators have to stop processing applications for legal immigrants (things like green cards and such) so they have the bandwidth to process the 800,000 (and probably more) illegal immigrant applications that will be flooding in.

So yeah, foreigners who respect the law will be put in the back of the line AND will subsidize the applications of those who are here illegally. And contra Flintlocker's representations, I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of people applying under Obama's power grab will be ineligible but will be automatically approved anyway.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 18:20
This is key, and it's actually worse than you suggest. Because the USCIS is funded by fees and not taxes, and because these amnesty-in-all-but-name applications likely won't have fees attached, that means adjudicators have to stop processing applications for legal immigrants (things like green cards and such) so they have the bandwidth to process the 800,000 (and probably more) illegal immigrant applications that will be flooding in.

So yeah, foreigners who respect the law will be put in the back of the line AND will subsidize the applications of those who are here illegally. And contra Flintlocker's representations, I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of people applying under Obama's power grab will be ineligible but will be automatically approved anyway.


That hardly seems like either "fairness" or "justice" -- the words most frequently bandied about by leftists who have no interest in the actual meanings of those words...


.

Rabid Rabbit
06-15-2012, 18:26
No surprise... you guys immediately ignore the actual policy and devolve to name calling.

For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:




The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military.

...

The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship or even permanent legal status, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Who cares? Illegals should be deported whether they came here at 3 months 16 years or 60 years. Under thirty, over thirty, who cares? Illegal is illegal. An exercise of discretion to the next election is what it is.

RHVEtte
06-15-2012, 18:32
I probably should have mentioned when I started this thread why this upsets me MORE than most.

I am actually married to a LEGAL immigrant, I have spent almost $40,000 in fees and attorneys, and almost 11 years to make her a citizen, and this makes me absolutely sick. Most of them will never know the hardships of actually trying to do it the right way.

They will never know what it actually took my wife to become an American, build your credit at starting at age 27 from a blank slate, having no relationships with anyone, paying taxes even when you reap none of the rewards of being a citizen, and all while doing it with a smile on her face.

Instead they get free healthcare, free education, and now they can work legally as well. Well kiss my ass, do any of these "immigrants" even know what it cost to get an I-9 H1B Work Visa.....NO because they don't give a ****, and now they get rewarded for it.

Y'know, I think that's part of the problem. I know it's vastly over-represented, but there are people who come here illegally because they can't afford to do it the legal way. Yet were it not for that, we'd welcome them in readily. Even if they're not a large percentage of the illegal immigrants, changing the system to make it easier for the good ones to get in gets rid of any illusion of legitimacy the illegals use and lets us actually bear down on the problem.

To that end, I've been thinking about possible tweaks to the system, and I think I may have stumbled upon something. What do you guys think about this?

The proposed new system would be a lottery. X amount of visas, citizenships, etc. would be allotted each year, perhaps a percentage of the population as per the latest census (say 1%). That means that there would be 3,000,000 openings each year for ten years, then 3,300,000 for ten years, etc., etc.

Here's where I think this really starts to take off, though. There are 3,000,000 openings, but you can enter more than once. Each person applies using a points system determining how many entries they have in the pool. Each person has to have a clean criminal record and a clean bill of health to enter and get their first entry. That's it. You don't even need to speak English. If you want to form your own Little Italy or Chinatown and write the signs in whatever language you want, go for it. But the rest of the US is going to be in English, so it would be a good idea to learn it.

But, after that, things that make you more marketable add points. For example, if you speak Basic English (IIRC, the average person uses about 300 words in day-to-day life), you get an extra entry. Fluent English gets you another still. Having a verified job in the country you are emigrating from gets you an extra entry, as does a written offer for a job in the States upon successful entry. A BA/BS, MA/MS/ and Ph.D./MD are all good for an extra entry each, as well. Having a signed affidavit from a family member already established in the States (think FBI clearance check interview) is good for another point, as is an improvement in any category from the best prior application.

So, for example, a doctor who has a job in Mexico, an offer for a job in the US, who has family in the States to vouch for him, and just improved from Basic to Fluent English, would get 10 entries in the pool. In comparison, an unemployed farm hand who doesn't speak English with no family in-state would only get one.

But now this last bit, is the part that I think makes it attractive. If any of your numbers get pulled, obviously, they all get pulled from the pool. But if you don't get called this year, you can resubmit your numbers the next year (pending a clean bill of health and background check) for a reduced fee. Or, pay the full fee again if you want to reevaluate the number of applicable points you've accrued (like if your thesis was approved and you just got your Doctorate this year.) This way, the system isn't so heavily weighted towards the already accomplished that the poor seeking refuge can continue to apply instead of trying once, saying, "Well, that didn't work. Kids, over the fence!"

BUT, this system could only work if a lot of changes were made to the American infrastructure, first. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and a lot of other things would have to be trimmed back heavily to prevent abuses (which, considering they should be essentially destroyed on Constitutional grounds anyway, isn't that big a deal.) To encourage integration and reduce overhead, the official and only language of US offices would be English, etc., etc. Otherwise, it would encourage people to come here and bring the same mentality that made their old country some place they wanted to leave.

countrygun
06-15-2012, 18:38
'After my election, I will have more flexibility" .... :upeyes:

.

That even more chilling today than it was a short time ago when he said it.

countrygun
06-15-2012, 18:48
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson


That one snippet of a quote can be used to justify anything, anyone does, that breaks any law.

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 18:59
So to clarify, in your view Congress is only to act in an advisory capacity and the President may act unilaterally, especially on matters he deems to be "the right thing."

How is that not tyranny? The New York Times isn't clear. :rofl:

Bush used executive power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. Where was the outrage then?

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 19:01
So, if my father stole a million dollars from a company you owned, when I was 15, and left the money to me, and you found out, you wouldn't demand the money back, since it wasn't my fault?

That's a pretty sloppy syllogism. A better one would be to ask if a kid should be jailed for his father's crime.

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 19:04
QUESTION:what do you now say to those who stood in line and followed the letter of the law that want to come here? Stay put because the fence jumpers jumped ahead of you? I would prefer to let someone in who respected us enough to follow the rules , the person willing to go through the red tape tells me they will appreciate being here.

You completely left out the fact that everyone effected by this decision was or is a minor who would be incapable of making such a decision. I agree that adults that break the rules should be deported and people that follow a legal path to citizenship should be first in line.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 19:08
Krauthammer on Obama’s new Dream Act: This is out and out lawlessness!
http://www.therightscoop.com/krauthammer-on-obamas-new-dream-act-this-is-out-and-out-lawlessness/

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 19:09
Who cares? Illegals should be deported whether they came here at 3 months 16 years or 60 years. Under thirty, over thirty, who cares? Illegal is illegal. An exercise of discretion to the next election is what it is.

I do and I think a majority of Americans do. In light of the US's history of lax immigration enforcement, it's unethical to deport a person who was a minor when they came here. This is a policy that Bush sought, that Republicans in Congress sought, and one that was blocked by obstructionist right wingers whose only policy is to oppose Obama at every turn.

oscarthegrouch
06-15-2012, 19:14
That's a pretty sloppy syllogism. A better one would be to ask if a kid should be jailed for his father's crime.

Not really. You're saying the children of criminals should get to keep the fruits of their parents illegal acts...continued illegal residency with no consequences.

Oh., and by the way...the real issue is that the president has no legal right to do this.

aircarver
06-15-2012, 19:39
Oh., and by the way...the real issue is that the president has no legal right to do this.

'A little mis-direction, a little sleight-of-hand' .....:upeyes:

.

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 20:13
Bush used executive power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. Where was the outrage then?

Probably the same place your outrage conveniently disappeared to. :upeyes:

You're stealing quite a few bases in your false comparison. In a nutshell, Bush was executing legislatively-approved policy and, oh, domestic taps did in fact require warrants.

Obama is creating policy out of whole cloth in direct defiance of what the Congress has authorized, based solely upon what he thinks is a "good thing" to do. If this is such a "good thing" then make the case to Congress and respect Article I, otherwise shut your corn hole. :wavey:

Fred Hansen
06-15-2012, 20:16
Explains why he doesn't like Jesus ........:supergrin:

.:supergrin: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Flintlocker
06-15-2012, 20:22
'A little mis-direction, a little sleight-of-hand' .....:upeyes:

.

Sure, sure. Isn't it funny that when Bush used his executive power for warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and torture, that Republicans weren't talking about his end runs around congress and "the law" but instead justified the acts based on their merits. But when Obama uses executive privilege you get all high and mighty on "the law" and completely ignore the details of the action. Hypocrisy, ain't it grand.

Oh, and since someone brought up Krauthammer, navel gazer in chief, here he is mealy mouthing Bush's warrantless wiretapping:

"Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor. "

Oopsie daisy, Bushie made a boo boo! Now listen to him, what a joke.

ModGlock17
06-15-2012, 20:22
I think the issue here is that the Obama camp has information that pretty much assure them of a Rubio VP. So they moved to pre-empt Rubio, put him on the spot and give him a "chance" to distance himself from either the Brown votes or the Rep establishment. Either way, they'd win in strategy.

They want Rubio to become too toxic for a VP spot.

The Rep is best not to make any comment on this issue and let time sweep it away under the rug. Else, they'd play right into Dem's hand.

The GOP has got to stop reacting to every Obama's little move. They've got to stay with the ECONOMY argument.

janice6
06-15-2012, 20:30
I expect the next thing will be to expedite the paperwork and just give out ballots at the border. That's all they are wanted for anyway.

jakebrake
06-15-2012, 20:53
so, with our laughable immigration policy, the fact that you have no idea who is here, how long they've been here, and have now quite literally opened the floodgates, this is a good idea.....

grab crowbar, pry head from ass.

this is an "executive order" what do you think the next one will be? gun seizure? internet control?

azatrox
06-15-2012, 21:42
A pre emptive strike on the decision the SCOTUS will hand down as early as this Monday on Az's SB1070.

Billua
06-15-2012, 22:33
That whole checks-and-balances thing between Congress and the executive office doesn't seem to be working so well.


.

Yeah, for at least the last 5 decades...

Fred Hansen
06-16-2012, 04:10
Stupid liberal **** on the radio today: "We can't send them back to the country(s) of their birth... they don't even speak the language!"


:upeyes: The Spanglish mongrel-speak they jibber-jabber with is ok HERE, but heaven forefend that they be returned to their country unable to speak the language.

engineer151515
06-16-2012, 05:23
A pre emptive strike on the decision the SCOTUS will hand down as early as this Monday on Az's SB1070.

Coupled with election year political expediency and growing discontent from the Hispanic community over the President's attention to this issue. When the window closed on the Democrat Congressional supermajority and the time invested was principally invested in passing Obamacare, Liberals wanting border legislation complained that their opportunity had been lost. A complaint ignored until 5 months before and election

engineer151515
06-16-2012, 05:41
Sure, sure. Isn't it funny that when Bush used his executive power for warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and torture, that Republicans weren't talking about his end runs around congress and "the law" but instead justified the acts based on their merits. But when Obama uses ex.ecutive privilege you get all high and mighty on "the law" and completely ignore the details of the action. Hypocrisy, ain't it grand.


Source your assertions on Bush's actions you claim above. Please remember that Congress did pass the Patriot Act and what you claim as torture were interrigation methods reviewed by Congress since 2002.

Your antiBush rants and revisionist history carry no credibility here.

maxsnafu
06-16-2012, 05:58
latinos voting for obama must drop their catholic beliefs because you cant be catholic and for abortion.

also, what many latinos fail to see is that its not that they are here illegally, its the welfare increase, gangs, and failure to become American that bothers most.

i know its unrealistic to think every latino can be a Mark Rubio.

But apparently Latinos can have a 50% out of wedlock birth rate and still be Catholic. And as for Rubio, what's the problem? Obama's "amnesty" is what he's been advocating all along.

maxsnafu
06-16-2012, 06:05
That's a pretty sloppy syllogism. A better one would be to ask if a kid should be jailed for his father's crime.

It's not a syllogism; it's an example--and a valid one. Should the child be allowed to profit by his parents' crime? If so, how do you justify that to the American public who expect their laws to be obeyed?

Flintlocker
06-16-2012, 06:10
Source your assertions on Bush's actions you claim above. Please remember that Congress did pass the Patriot Act and what you claim as torture were interrigation methods reviewed by Congress since 2002.

Your antiBush rants and revisionist history carry no credibility here.

The source of these claims is reality. Your misunderstanding of that reality is Foxnews, rightwing blogs, and all the other BS you fill your mind with. Are you kidding me? You can't even comprehend that these things actually took place? Wow.

eracer
06-16-2012, 06:13
If they were productive enough during the required 14 years in the country to pay back all of the tax dollars used to support them and their illegal families during that time, they can stay.

Oh, and they have to be able to recite the pledge of allegiance, in english, while hooked up to a polygraph.

Flintlocker
06-16-2012, 06:14
It's not a syllogism; it's an example--and a valid one. Should the child be allowed to profit by his parents' crime? If so, how do you justify that to the American public who expect their laws to be obeyed?

It was a syllogism but explaining it to you appears pointless. Perhaps you can explain to me, or better yet, quantify how a child, brought to the United States should have to pay for the crime of being brought to the United States.

kirgi08
06-16-2012, 06:50
Actually I don't care. First, the president should not have (as far as I know does not have) the power to do something like this. Second, how many "Americans" are already out of work? And third, its a slap in the face to every immigrant that came here legally and worked their asses off to become citizens. If I'm not mistakes doesn't serving in the military give an alien a step up to becoming a citizen. So why should those that have not get the same benefit as those that have. This thing stinks to high heaven anyway you look at it.

Well said Jerry.I bolded the part that has my friends ticked.'08.

maxsnafu
06-16-2012, 06:55
It was a syllogism but explaining it to you appears pointless. Perhaps you can explain to me, or better yet, quantify how a child, brought to the United States should have to pay for the crime of being brought to the United States.

Perhaps you could explain to me why said child should be allowed to profit by his parents crime.

greentriple
06-16-2012, 07:07
Ahhhhhh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!! Hahahahaha!!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Misty02
06-16-2012, 08:28
Interesting point...

I wonder if ALL the legal immigrants from parts of the world not called Mexico or Central America would comprise a sufficent bloc to constitute any sort of counter-narrative against the illegals? :dunno:

(Not to discount the legal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, of course...)


.

My parents went through a lot hardship, financially and otherwise to bring my sister and I to this country; none of which they regret and for which Iíll be eternally grateful. They, as well as me are in complete opposition to what has been done. None of us have any desire to have our tax dollars spent on putting kids through school, providing medical care or affording any services maintained by those of us that pay taxes for people that donít contribute (presently or in the past) toward the services they consume. They should also not be eligible for college grants that are not specifically designed for foreign students here legally, if such grants exist.

Obviously, we are in favor of legal immigration to what we believe is the greatest country on earth. Once here legally, everyone is expected to be a productive member of society.

So what happens to the illegal parents of a 16 year old that is granted this immunity?

If they wish to be PC and not discriminate I guess the right thing to do would be to abolish the costly process to come and remain in this country legally for all others, right?


.

engineer151515
06-16-2012, 08:32
The source of these claims is reality. Your misunderstanding of that reality is Foxnews, rightwing blogs, and all the other BS you fill your mind with. Are you kidding me? You can't even comprehend that these things actually took place? Wow.

Your claim was "Bush used his executive power for warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and torture"

and I said back that statement up.

You could not. FAIL.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 08:39
They don't need it... They earn their way ....

.


Is it not discriminatory that they have to earn their way while others get it on a silver platter? Talk about PC and discriminatory! pffftt

.

engineer151515
06-16-2012, 08:43
Is it not discriminatory that they have to earn their way while others get it on a silver platter? Talk about PC and discriminatory! pffftt

.

Hey Misty . . . :wavey::wavey::wavey:

Misty02
06-16-2012, 08:48
Great rationale, get new workers into a country that has a recession and can't find enough work for the citizens already there. What a thinker.

Work permits .....Work has nothing to do with it.

In reality, they are already working but not paying taxes. Nor are their employers paying payroll taxes or workers compensation premiums to cover on the job injuries. The only thing this change may bring is that theyíll pay income taxes, assuming the employers go the route of legalizing their employment (which remains to be seen). Financially, it is not entirely a bad idea to force them all into legal work where both the employee and employer have no choice but to comply. Morally, ethically and legally, not so much as a good idea with long tail repercussions.

.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 09:03
No surprise... you guys immediately ignore the actual policy and devolve to name calling.

For those that are interested in the facts of the matter, from the NYT:




The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military.

...

The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship or even permanent legal status, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

What extensions, if any, apply to the parents of the teenager attending school paid by our tax dollar? What contributions will they be forced to make to pay for the services they and their families are consuming, do the work permits extend to the parents of underage children? Do we get to maintain the entire family until the child reaches 18 and then deport the parents? What happens if a sibling commits a crime? Is the teenager protected by this allowed to stay alone in the US while the parents and the underage criminal sibling is deported or is the teenage criminal deported alone?

.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 09:22
Impeachment proceedings should begin imediately for a violation of the Constiution seperation of powers. If it does not, consider the Republic no longer a Republic. When the Constitution is simply ignored anything is possible.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 09:29
They were children when they were brought here, had no choice in the matter and have little or no connection to the countries they came from. They might not even speak the language. Deporting people under these circumstances is straight up wrong and borders on evil.

Maybe if congress had done the right thing then there would have been no need for the executive order. But the republican run congress has only shown a capacity for one thing: obstructionism.

Using that same line of thinking, it would be wrong and border on evil to place criminals with children in jail. Those children might have to live with strangers with whom they have no connections and in unfamiliar environments.

Parents are responsible for their childrenís well-being, their security and their environment, not the government. When parents engage in illegal activities they are well aware that their capture would result in uncertainty for their child and a future over which they may no longer have any control over.

How many children of others can you afford to maintain? Before answering that question, count just on your wallet, not mine.

.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 09:31
Maybe the parents are responsible.


Inconceivable thought, isnít it? :)

.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 09:34
Yeah, but it's not amnesty. They just get to stay here and stay here with no worries of deportation.

Ok, weíll just call it immunity to deportation. :wavey:

.

Jerry
06-16-2012, 09:38
What extensions, if any, apply to the parents of the teenager attending school paid by our tax dollar? What contributions will they be forced to make to pay for the services they and their families are consuming, do the work permits extend to the parents of underage children? Do we get to maintain the entire family until the child reaches 18 and then deport the parents? What happens if a sibling commits a crime? Is the teenager protected by this allowed to stay alone in the US while the parents and the underage criminal sibling is deported or is the teenage criminal deported alone?

.


Damn! There you go getting all logical and stuff. ;)

engineer151515
06-16-2012, 09:43
Impeachment proceedings should begin imediately for a violation of the Constiution seperation of powers. If it does not, consider the Republic no longer a Republic. When the Constitution is simply ignored anything is possible.

We can't even get a contempt of Congress charge against Eric Holder.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 09:44
The parents are responsible. Kids that were 15 or under obviously aren't.

Agreed! It would be the parents that are deported, underage children are the responsibility of their parents not taxpayers in a foreign (to the parent's) land. Thus they are returned along with their parents. Unless you are in favor of separating families, even I am not that heartless.


If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

Does that mean youíre in favor of illegal immigration from any and all countries which in turn translates to you paying for their stay in this country as well as all their basic necessities whether they pay for them or not?

You are a very generous person! You wouldnít be counting with my earnings and that of my family to fund for your generosity, would you?


.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 09:53
This is key, and it's actually worse than you suggest. Because the USCIS is funded by fees and not taxes, and because these amnesty-in-all-but-name applications likely won't have fees attached, that means adjudicators have to stop processing applications for legal immigrants (things like green cards and such) so they have the bandwidth to process the 800,000 (and probably more) illegal immigrant applications that will be flooding in.

So yeah, foreigners who respect the law will be put in the back of the line AND will subsidize the applications of those who are here illegally. And contra Flintlocker's representations, I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of people applying under Obama's power grab will be ineligible but will be automatically approved anyway.

How would that in turn affect the fees to be paid by those utilizing the legal process to come and/or stay in this country legally? Would those application fees need to be increased to pay for processing where no fees are collected?

.

sbhaven
06-16-2012, 09:54
Perhaps you could explain to me why said child should be allowed to profit by his parents crime.
They shouldn't. However, on the flip side nor should they be punished for their parents crime. And there in lies the crux of the problem. Their parents brought them here illegally, yet once they turn 18 what then? Send them back? The language of Obama's edict (currently) apparently includes up to age 30.

Politically, Obama and his election team picked a real good tactical issue here. Republicans don't have a coherent effective media strategy to counter the lefts position on illegal immigration.

People get emotional on this issue since it involves kids, in addition to adults up to age 30, who through no fault of their own are here illegally. Its easy to say kick them all out. But once the media inevitably runs a photo similar to this one the country's attitude will change overnight...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/06/article-1263883-00285E4200000258-256_468x338.jpg

:dunno:
Edit to add: This issue is at the crossroads of multi decades long; poor immigration policy, poorly written laws, Presidential edict, failure to close our borders, failure of effective governmental/political leadership, emotions, human morals, and compassion. Don't know if we'll ever find a solution to this problem that satisfies everyone.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 11:13
You completely left out the fact that everyone effected by this decision was or is a minor who would be incapable of making such a decision. I agree that adults that break the rules should be deported and people that follow a legal path to citizenship should be first in line.

Again, are you willing to provide for them all? If youíre willing to take full responsibility for them, including but not limited to financially, go for it. Deport the parents that committed the crime and you raise them. Just make certain you donít impose financially (or otherwise) on others.

.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 11:17
I do and I think a majority of Americans do. In light of the US's history of lax immigration enforcement, it's unethical to deport a person who was a minor when they came here. This is a policy that Bush sought, that Republicans in Congress sought, and one that was blocked by obstructionist right wingers whose only policy is to oppose Obama at every turn.

I donít particularly care if it is a republican or a democrat issue, who started it, who continues it, etc. Itís unaffordable and a drain on tax payers. We have a bankrupt country that canít even afford the services for which the citizenís are paying.


.

JFrame
06-16-2012, 11:20
My parents went through a lot hardship, financially and otherwise to bring my sister and I to this country; none of which they regret and for which Iíll be eternally grateful. They, as well as me are in complete opposition to what has been done. None of us have any desire to have our tax dollars spent on putting kids through school, providing medical care or affording any services maintained by those of us that pay taxes for people that donít contribute (presently or in the past) toward the services they consume. They should also not be eligible for college grants that are not specifically designed for foreign students here legally, if such grants exist.

Obviously, we are in favor of legal immigration to what we believe is the greatest country on earth. Once here legally, everyone is expected to be a productive member of society.

So what happens to the illegal parents of a 16 year old that is granted this immunity?

If they wish to be PC and not discriminate I guess the right thing to do would be to abolish the costly process to come and remain in this country legally for all others, right?


.


Yup...!

As I said before -- I sure don't see the fairness and justice in all this for those who struggled to do it the hard -- and legal -- way.


.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 11:21
It was a brilliant political move given the way we enforce our immigration laws anyway. It's like saying,

"Obama puts moritorium on prison sentences for jaywalking"

What are the Republicans going to do, argue FOR prison sentences for jaywalking?

Fred Hansen
06-16-2012, 11:46
It was a syllogism but explaining it to you appears pointless. Perhaps you can explain to me, or better yet, quantify how a child, brought to the United States should have to pay for the crime of being brought to the United States.They don't have to pay. They just need to get on the transportation vehicle we deport them on/in. No charge.

maxsnafu
06-16-2012, 11:53
They shouldn't. However, on the flip side nor should they be punished for their parents crime. And there in lies the crux of the problem. Their parents brought them here illegally, yet once they turn 18 what then? Send them back? The language of Obama's edict (currently) apparently includes up to age 30.

Politically, Obama and his election team picked a real good tactical issue here. Republicans don't have a coherent effective media strategy to counter the lefts position on illegal immigration.

People get emotional on this issue since it involves kids, in addition to adults up to age 30, who through no fault of their own are here illegally. Its easy to say kick them all out. But once the media inevitably runs a photo similar to this one the country's attitude will change overnight...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/06/article-1263883-00285E4200000258-256_468x338.jpg

:dunno:
Edit to add: This issue is at the crossroads of multi decades long; poor immigration policy, poorly written laws, Presidential edict, failure to close our borders, failure of effective governmental/political leadership, emotions, human morals, and compassion. Don't know if we'll ever find a solution to this problem that satisfies everyone.

I suspect you're correct and that's why we should expect the sort of future depicted in this book: Amazon.com: The Camp of the Saints (9781881780076): Jean Raspail: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41L5O6XpdfL.@@AMEPARAM@@41L5O6XpdfL

The first customer review pretty much sums up our situation. The Left claims--and most of the Right are too cowardly to disagree--that we have a moral obligation to commit suicide.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 11:56
If they were productive enough during the required 14 years in the country to pay back all of the tax dollars used to support them and their illegal families during that time, they can stay.

Oh, and they have to be able to recite the pledge of allegiance, in english, while hooked up to a polygraph.

I had to pass quite a stringent test to become an American Citizen, as did my parents. We had to learn about the United Stateís Constitution, form of government, the election process, the flag, etc. They also paid taxes from the moment we arrived. Here are some questions on the test after 2008, ours was many decades before and seem just a tad harder (perhaps because I was so young and was still struggling with a language barrier?) http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm)

I wonder how many have registered for the Selective Service. The exemptions for not registering are few and legal status in this country is not within the exemptions. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm)

BTW, if illegal immigrants can legally serve in the military I would be in support of granting them citizenship status after they have completed their service and are honorably discharged. However, it is my understanding that illegal immigrants cannot serve in the military to start with.

.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 12:02
Hey Misty . . . :wavey::wavey::wavey:

Hi there! :wavey:

.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 12:23
..............

Edit to add: This issue is at the crossroads of multi decades long; poor immigration policy, poorly written laws, Presidential edict, failure to close our borders, failure of effective governmental/political leadership, emotions, human morals, and compassion. Don't know if we'll ever find a solution to this problem that satisfies everyone.

It is not necessarily that the laws are poorly written, it is mostly that they are not enforced.

How about starting with anyone that is arrested for any reason? The only hearing that should take place, once it is confirmed the person is not here legally, is the one for making the arrangements for deportation, which should take place no later than 30 days after the arrest (regardless of age). Should the parents, or other family members, come forward and their illegal status confirmed, they get to join the deported.

.

GAFinch
06-16-2012, 12:26
If the government grants amnesty to 800,000 illegal kids, then by extension the government would know that their parents are illegal also. Is the government going to break up families, or give amnesty to the 1,600,000 parents as well? Since the parents broke the law entering this country, they all have a criminal past by default. Is this program a one time deal, or will it keep granting amnesty to kids (and their parents) each year as they turn 15? Since this program was enacted without congress, is there going to be congressional oversight of this program's caseworkers to ensure that proper screening is being done?

greentriple
06-16-2012, 14:22
😂 or 😠💩

We are taking over, soon you will be making our meals, cleaning our homes, caring for our children, doing our gardening, washing our cars, assembling our goods and them when you least expect it we will force you to speak our language!

As the future Dr.s, lawyers, teachers, politicians and Captains of Industry all aspects of America will be in our control.

The sleeping giant is waking.

California
Colorado
Arizona
Texas
Nuevo Mexico
Florida
And more will be ours once again, 🎉🎈👏😝.

Quick take to the hills....


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

rgregoryb
06-16-2012, 14:41
😂 or 😠💩

We are taking over, soon you will be making our meals, cleaning our homes, caring for our children, doing our gardening, washing our cars, assembling our goods and them when you least expect it we will force you to speak our language!

As the future Dr.s, lawyers, teachers, politicians and Captains of Industry all aspects of America will be in our control.

The sleeping giant is waking.

California
Colorado
Arizona
Texas
Nuevo Mexico
Florida
And more will be ours once again, 🎉🎈👏😝.

Quick take to the hills....


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

you do this in between chasing ambulances, or is it billable hours on a wrongful injury case?

you for a nation of law or what feels good to you?

janice6
06-16-2012, 14:43
Today he was whining on national news that we have all these workers and no jobs.

Great logic, slow thinker.

azatrox
06-16-2012, 14:45
Where do they get the 800,000 number? That would be just in the Phoenix area by my estimation.

JFrame
06-16-2012, 14:45
Today he was whining on national news that we have all these workers and no jobs.

Great logic, slow thinker.


Milk the rich -- problem solved...


/sarcasm


.

ESI Agent
06-16-2012, 15:25
Japan has no naturl resources and is a economic power!
Germany was destroyed in WWII, and is a economic power!
The Soviet Union fell in 1988 and was broke, now Russia is out of debt and a economic power.
Mexico, rich in natural resources,large workforce,large consumer base, last war fought 1867,when the French left,thanks to the U.S., is poor,and a third world country.Why?
They just don't know how to run their country and they spend too much time trying to change our country rather then lead by example and fix their own corrupt country that they love so much.

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 15:39
�� or ����

We are taking over, soon you will be making our meals, cleaning our homes, caring for our children, doing our gardening, washing our cars, assembling our goods and them when you least expect it we will force you to speak our language!

As the future Dr.s, lawyers, teachers, politicians and Captains of Industry all aspects of America will be in our control.

The sleeping giant is waking.

California
Colorado
Arizona
Texas
Nuevo Mexico
Florida
And more will be ours once again, ��������.

Quick take to the hills....


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That must be some real powerful stuff you are smoking, http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/222/8/b/Smoke_the_Bong_by_rear.gifeither that, or you are coming in broken and unreadable.

Which is it?




Just in case you mean what I think you mean, there aren't many blades of grass in Texas as there are in the rest of the country, but we only sent just over 2000 firearms south of the border under Barry's watch. That ain't near enough. We still have enough to place a rifle behind each one of those blades of grass. .
I remember the Alamo, and so do you. But I bet it goes down like San Jascinto again. America has many more toys than even your cartel friends have, to wage war.

Wear a big hat, so our older guys can see where to aim.

greentriple
06-16-2012, 15:57
All without firing a single round.

Let's get you all started: spell "socks". That's right, that's what it is!

As for the Mexico bashing, it's true she is a troubled nation, and although she is home to the wealthiest man in the world, she is cursed! So far from God, so close to the United States!

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 16:07
All without firing a single round.

Let's get you all started: spell "socks". That's right, that's what it is!

As for the Mexico bashing, it's true she is a troubled nation, and although she is home to the wealthiest man in the world, she is cursed! So far from God, so close to the United States!

See you there, or not. I'm betting not. We took Texas fair and square, and we are keeping it.

greentriple
06-16-2012, 16:16
What's true in all this is a public admission that Latinos will be the single most powerful voting and economic block within our lifetime.

Rant and rave about Obama's decision and then watch as your conservative exclusionary thinking goes the way of the dinasours.

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 16:50
What's true in all this is a public admission that Latinos will be the single most powerful voting and economic block within our lifetime.

Rant and rave about Obama's decision and then watch as your conservative exclusionary thinking goes the way of the dinasours.



Hmmmm.

That seems a bit over-optimistic to me.

http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Distribution_of_US_Population_by_RE_2010_and_2050.jpg


That could all change if we pay attention to common sense.
I'm very fair in my opinion of what needs to be done.


First, create an "I used to be an illegal alien" ID card that is verifiable over the internet. Make it a felony to assist an unidentified illegal in obtaining fraudulent documentation, punishable by $5000 and 5 years in jail per count.

Then allow 1 year for all illegals to get theirs. While educating everyone on what is to come.

After 1 year, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by 1 year in jail and $1000, to be, or to hire an illegal without the ID card.

After 18 months, it's a felony, punishable by 5 years in jail, or $50,000 fine for being an illegal, or hiring one without the ID card. Offer a $1000 dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of any duly identified illegals. $1500 per Illegal captured if the finder happens to be otherwise unemployed (putting Americans back to work) We have to watch spending, so cap it at say..... $100,000 per year per household.

After 2 years, all social services (food stamps, housing, public education etc) stop for all illegals & their non US citizen family members without the ID card. Schools found to have illegal aliens enrolled are fined $500 for each week that an illegal alien attended, per student. All Illegals found, regardless of how, without the ID card are deported.

We then get to decide how many we want to allow to stay, and how many should go. We also get to decide, on whatever criteria we'd like, who stays and who goes. I'm for automatically deporting everyone with more than two arrests for non-immigration misdemeanor offenses. Any convictions of any felony should get them an automatic ticket home.

We don't want to break up any families, so anchor babies must be considered. If it is decided that one or both parents must be deported, then the parents go, period, end of discussion on that point. The child will be allowed to go with his/her parents, or they can stay in the USA at the parents expense if suitable supervision can be arranged.

Since we will finally have access to demographics on this hidden culture, we can decide how much we should give them in the form of social services. How many non-working family members per worker will be allowed. What the illegal immigrant minimum wage should be. How much they will pay in taxes & If there should be limits on their stay.



There will be crooks among them, there will also be high quality people. We should consider a path to permanent resident alien (non-voting) status for the top performers based on whatever criteria we choose.


If you remove the financial benefits on both the supply and demand sides of the equation, and positively ID all of them, you can start to manage the population.

greentriple
06-16-2012, 17:02
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 17:06
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Great link, but you left out the title.

Here, I play tech support once in a while, I'll help an hombre out once in a while.


Obamaís policy strategy: Ignore laws (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html)


Yeah, Barry is on the wrong side of this. Mittens has an opportunity to turn Barry upside down on this issue, if he wants too.

JFrame
06-16-2012, 18:33
Great link, but you left out the title.

Here, I play tech support once in a while, I'll help an hombre out once in a while.


Obamaís policy strategy: Ignore laws (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html)


Yeah, Barry is on the wrong side of this. Mittens has an opportunity to turn Barry upside down on this issue, if he wants too.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_spank.gif


.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 18:37
Take a step back for a second and re-read greentripleís comments. They may lack the sarcasm smiley but they are on point if things donít change.


.

greentriple
06-16-2012, 19:12
Great link, but you left out the title.

Here, I play tech support once in a while, I'll help an hombre out once in a while.


Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html)


Yeah, Barry is on the wrong side of this. Mittens has an opportunity to turn Barry upside down on this issue, if he wants too.

It's in the title of the article.

While I agree Congress should enact laws, perhaps when it is FROZEN due to stupid partisan politics other means must be taken to move forward.

We should have laws from those partisan a-holes in congress that stop discrimination against people based on being in love with members of the same sex, laws that allow us to give our money to online casino, allow people with prescriptions to smoke as much weed as their Dr prescribes and give young people who were brought here before they understood where here is and have done everything to assimilate and embrace our nation, including serving and dying in our armed forces, working 40 hr jobs and paying both income and consumer taxes, improving their education and staying here to grow our economy not to mention pay off their student loans.

But, if the fat cats in the capital are so beholden to petty haters and terrified interest groups that they'd rather do nothing than seem remotely interested in what our nation needs, then good for Barry, good for him.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

rgregoryb
06-16-2012, 19:33
so ,your only interested in the rule of law when it meets your agenda.

Barry did well, if you're looking for a king or dictator.

Misty02
06-16-2012, 20:11
It's in the title of the article.

While I agree Congress should enact laws, perhaps when it is FROZEN due to stupid partisan politics other means must be taken to move forward.

We should have laws from those partisan a-holes in congress that stop discrimination against people based on being in love with members of the same sex, laws that allow us to give our money to online casino, allow people with prescriptions to smoke as much weed as their Dr prescribes and give young people who were brought here before they understood where here is and have done everything to assimilate and embrace our nation, including serving and dying in our armed forces, working 40 hr jobs and paying both income and consumer taxes, improving their education and staying here to grow our economy not to mention pay off their student loans.

But, if the fat cats in the capital are so beholden to petty haters and terrified interest groups that they'd rather do nothing than seem remotely interested in what our nation needs, then good for Barry, good for him.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

How do you pay income taxes when you canít get a job legally because you are here illegally?

.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 20:12
It's in the title of the article.

While I agree Congress should enact laws, perhaps when it is FROZEN due to stupid partisan politics other means must be taken to move forward.

We should have laws from those partisan a-holes in congress that stop discrimination against people based on being in love with members of the same sex, laws that allow us to give our money to online casino, allow people with prescriptions to smoke as much weed as their Dr prescribes and give young people who were brought here before they understood where here is and have done everything to assimilate and embrace our nation, including serving and dying in our armed forces, working 40 hr jobs and paying both income and consumer taxes, improving their education and staying here to grow our economy not to mention pay off their student loans.

But, if the fat cats in the capital are so beholden to petty haters and terrified interest groups that they'd rather do nothing than seem remotely interested in what our nation needs, then good for Barry, good for him.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Let me take a few guesses, correct me when I am wrong. I suspect you are probably an immigration attorney. Also, I suspect the Constitution means very little to you.

rgregoryb
06-16-2012, 21:27
Let me take a few guesses, correct me when I am wrong. I suspect you are probably an immigration attorney. Also, I suspect the Constitution means very little to you.

just like the POTUS

Ruble Noon
06-16-2012, 21:40
Take a step back for a second and re-read greentripleís comments. They may lack the sarcasm smiley but they are on point if things donít change.


.

I believe you are correct.

Gundude
06-16-2012, 22:53
How do you pay income taxes when you canít get a job legally because you are here illegally?

.They get withheld from your paycheck by an employer who doesn't know or doesn't care that your SS number is fraudulent.

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 06:14
They get withheld from your paycheck by an employer who doesn't know or doesn't care that your SS number is fraudulent.

And that works because no employer would dare just pay them cash under the table.......:upeyes:

Misty02
06-17-2012, 06:15
They get withheld from your paycheck by an employer who doesn't know or doesn't care that your SS number is fraudulent.

In those cases their crimes go even further than being here illegally.

.

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 06:16
It's in the title of the article.

While I agree Congress should enact laws, perhaps when it is FROZEN due to stupid partisan politics other means must be taken to move forward.

We should have laws from those partisan a-holes in congress that stop discrimination against people based on being in love with members of the same sex, laws that allow us to give our money to online casino, allow people with prescriptions to smoke as much weed as their Dr prescribes and give young people who were brought here before they understood where here is and have done everything to assimilate and embrace our nation, including serving and dying in our armed forces, working 40 hr jobs and paying both income and consumer taxes, improving their education and staying here to grow our economy not to mention pay off their student loans.

But, if the fat cats in the capital are so beholden to petty haters and terrified interest groups that they'd rather do nothing than seem remotely interested in what our nation needs, then good for Barry, good for him.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Barry may well get what he wants, or he might just upset the largest demographic in the country. Only time will tell, and it will be very interesting to watch. The only thing that I can absolutely guarantee, is that there will be significant political developments prior to November.

Hang on, it should be a wild ride.

engineer151515
06-17-2012, 07:34
so ,your only interested in the rule of law when it meets your agenda.

Barry did well, if you're looking for a king or dictator.

Kinda how I read that, too.


Plus, real Presidential leadership has everything to do with uniting diverse political interests or even coalescing the demands of American voters to drive Congress to action.

This President has done nothing but divide America, pitting faction against faction, driving wedges and representing special interests to his extreme leftist personal cause. He has played the race card. He has played the "tax the rich" card. He does not represent the best in American principle nor does he represent the American populace that placed him in office. His one term occupation of the White House and subsequent disownership by the Democrat Party (ala Jimmy Carter) will drive that point home to him as he sits at home in Chicago wondering if he should return to his old occupation of "community organizer" or if he can make enough on speaking fees to keep up with the rent plus Michelle's high end fashion design expenses.

aircarver
06-17-2012, 08:21
This will take elections, impeachments, and prosecutions.... :steamed:

.

maxsnafu
06-17-2012, 08:41
This will take elections, impeachments, and prosecutions.... :steamed:

.

Elections will happen and they may make a difference but I doubt it. The political class know that significant majorities want the immigration situation solved but they don't care. We help out by dutifully re-electing the people who screw us and then complain. As regards immigration, Democrat or Republican, it really doesn't matter. They want immigration so we're going to get it good and hard.

In order for a representative democracy to function it requires an informed, involved electorate who are willing to vote the national interest. America fails all these requirements. Thus the situation will continue to deteriorate until we are overrun. That's when things will get interesting because, as experience the world over has shown, disparate peoples rarely live together peaceably for long.

And, as for "prosecutions" and "impeachment," forget about it.

Kingarthurhk
06-17-2012, 08:47
just like the POTUS

Yes, I am very disgusted by that. I didn't put him there. I don't plan on helping him get there again either.