Obama's plan to stop deporting illegal immigrants

[JJ Husker]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says his plan to stop deporting younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children will make the system "more fair, more efficient and more just."

The president says it "makes no sense to expel talented young people" who are essentially Americans. He says he was taking the action in the absence of action by Congress "to fix our broken system."

Obama's election-year initiative should help him among Hispanic voters. It will begin granting young immigrants work permits, affecting as many as 800,000 young people who have lived in fear of deportation.

 

Full article- http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics-whitehouse/20120615/US.Obama.Immigration/?cid=hero_media

 

I'm struggling with the "more fair" and "more just" parts of this. Sure it might be more "efficient" to ignore US Immigration law and enable illegal immigrants to do whatever the heck they want. And, sure, it might be more "efficient" than giving our immigration officials the resources needed to assure legal immigration. But how is this in any stretch of the definition "fair" or "just" to American workers or to other legal immigrants who followed the rules? The spin is to imply it is only "young talented" people who won't be deported. Who is going to determine that? How? Who is going to step forward and deport this young persons parent(s) who may be much older, much less talented, and in some cases drug dealers and gangbangers?

 

IMO, this is nothing more than BHO going after the hispanic vote. What gives him the right to supersede the job of our elected representatives by instituting de facto policy like this?

[The Dude]

I'm so sick of hearing about illegal immigrants. Our borders should be open to anyone who wants to come. That is what the American spirit is all about; opportunity for all. We've always been an immigrant nation. Always will be.

[JJ Husker]

Wouldn't the more proper procedure be to adjust immigration law rather than one guy determining how it's going to be?

I think there a lot of good arguments for moving some "illegals" to "legal" status but I fail to see how this way is fair or just.

To me it's not an issue of how well someone speaks english or if they may not be paying taxes. It is simply a right or wrong issue.

It is wrong to break the law.

It is wrong to ignore current laws.

It is wrong to arbitrarily give some persons legal status while not giving it to others.

And, with our current economy, I believe it is the wrong time to create further competition for the few jobs that might be available to American citizens.

[krill]

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed.

 

This is a really narrow group of individuals. I think you have to be pretty damn obtuse to say people who meet these requirements and want to American citizens should be deported instead. Immigration reform has stagnated and failed because a minority of xenophobes won't allow our laws to reflect reality...Herman Cain's crocodile moat idea epitomized this. Rhetoric reaching that level of stupidity being greeted with loud applause said to me that there is no hope reason prevailing in the Republican camp.

[JJ Husker]

Wouldn't the more proper procedure be to adjust immigration law rather than one guy determining how it's going to be?

I think there a lot of good arguments for moving some "illegals" to "legal" status but I fail to see how this way is fair or just.

To me it's not an issue of how well someone speaks english or if they may not be paying taxes. It is simply a right or wrong issue.

It is wrong to break the law.

It is wrong to ignore current laws.

It is wrong to arbitrarily give some persons legal status while not giving it to others.

And, with our current economy, I believe it is the wrong time to create further competition for the few jobs that might be available to American citizens.

 

If that's the case, why haven't you been arguing against the 'wars' for the past 10 years? There's been no formal declaration of war and it's been longer than 100 days that qualifies as a police action in American law. So, the pres has been breaking the law ever since Gulf War 1.

 

It's either all or none...black or white...once you start talking about observing laws.

Really? That's the total sum of your response? That if I have an opinion on one thing then it's not valid until you see that I also have other opinions that you feel are consistent with this one?. So, I guess since your position on this so far has been that you want the law ignored, that you want all laws ignored. See how it doesn't work that way? If you don't want to address this issue or my opinion on it, fine. But you might want to refrain from telling others how you think they should react to totally unrelated issues. It sort of comes off like you couldn't dispute what I said, even though you apparently disagree, so instead inserted some other issue to cloud the discussion.

[JJ Husker]

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed.

 

 

 

This is a really narrow group of individuals. I think you have to be pretty damn obtuse to say people who meet these requirements and want to American citizens should be deported instead. Immigration reform has stagnated and failed because a minority of xenophobes won't allow our laws to reflect reality...Herman Cain's crocodile moat idea epitomized this. Rhetoric reaching that level of stupidity being greeted with loud applause said to me that there is no hope reason prevailing in the Republican camp.

I'm not saying people who meet this narrow definition should be deported instead. In fact, I feel it is a pretty darned good definition of some people we should allow to become citizens. My issues with it are how it's getting done and for what reason it is being done. It is being done by Obama (not congress) to help garner him the hispanic vote (not for any humanitarian reason). If our government is capable of making sure these people fit this narrow description, then they are holding out on us big time in managing other issues.

 

Edit- Plus, I was purposely trying to introduce a subject that I thought would generate some strong opinions. The Religion & Politics forum has been a little boring as of late.

[HoustonSker]

I'm so sick of hearing about illegal immigrants. Our borders should be open to anyone who wants to come. That is what the American spirit is all about; opportunity for all. We've always been an immigrant nation. Always will be.

 

Opportunity for all? Yes, for legal those individuals who take the time and are responsible enough to progress through the immigration process, legally. Key word, legal.

 

Using your logic, what is the use of having a country if it's open to all? There's the risk that society would devolve into chaos if we let anyone in for 'opportunity'. Think about what you're saying, you're essentially advocating for a free for all. Check out some of those great border towns if you want a taste, and feel free to pay for all of those great government services that illegals suck money out of.

 

Yes, we are an immigrant nation that promotes opportunity. However, we are also a nation that respects the rule of law and those laws stipulate how immigration is to be conducted. Simply because a majority of us are descended from immigrants, think 1700-1900, does not translate into open borders in the present day.

[HoustonSker]

I'm sorry to say that this may be a reasonable proposition, but given the timing, BHO is ginning up the Latino population.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm unsure if this would be legal...does this count as an Executive Order because there's no way it would pass Congress. However, it is similar to something Marco Rubio proposed so perhaps BHO is manuvering should Mitt pick Marco as his VP. Lastly, this should also ignite a fire among Repubs and a good number of independents...giving work visas to children of illegal immigrants in the midst of a pathetic economic recovery...

 

BHO has had a bad two weeks and has to hit up all of the interest groups...women, gays, celebs, Latinos...I wonder who's next...?

[huKSer]

– Foreigners should be barred if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

 

– Foreigners should enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” Also they should not show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

 

– Illegal entry into the country should be equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation should be punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Illegals should be kicked out of the country without due process.

 

– Law enforcement officials at all levels must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The military can also be required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. You can also have citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah. These are MEXICO's illegal alien policy.

[The Dude]

– Foreigners should be barred if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

 

– Foreigners should enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” Also they should not show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

 

– Illegal entry into the country should be equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation should be punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Illegals should be kicked out of the country without due process.

 

– Law enforcement officials at all levels must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The military can also be required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. You can also have citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah. These are MEXICO's illegal alien policy.

Just because Mexico sucks at human rights, doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to be better.

[knapplc]

This incident reminds me of the phrase I heard so often when Obama was elected: "I'll show your president the same respect you showed mine."

 

 

First the idiot who shouted "You lie!" at the president during a speech in front of congress, now this idiot opens his yap when Obama is in the middle of announcing this deportation thing:

 

LINK

 

 

Why should the rest of the world show our president respect when clearly Conservatives don't? This is just disgusting. No president in the last 100 years has had to deal with this kind of nonsense.

 

Wait - I take that back. Bush had to deal with something similar, when an Iraqi "reporter" threw a shoe at him.

 

Congratulations, Conservative Pundits. You're taking your cues from Iraq now.

 

Kudos.

[walksalone]

I'm on board with most of what was proposed with one caveat. If you want to gain your citizenship, you should have to serve a term of enlistment in the U.S. military, of no less than say, 3 years. That shows that, you want to come here, and that you're willing to defend your new "home", and not just live off of the gov't programs.

[zoogs]

I'm sorry to say that this may be a reasonable proposition, but given the timing, BHO is ginning up the Latino population.

 

Haha! Sorry to say? It's amusing the lengths that you're going to find something to criticize about him even when you agree with a policy he is making.

 

There must be no good that he can possibly do in the eyes of some - since doing so would invariably indicate election-year pandering to demographics.

[JJ Husker]

This incident reminds me of the phrase I heard so often when Obama was elected: "I'll show your president the same respect you showed mine."

 

 

First the idiot who shouted "You lie!" at the president during a speech in front of congress, now this idiot opens his yap when Obama is in the middle of announcing this deportation thing:

 

LINK

 

 

Why should the rest of the world show our president respect when clearly Conservatives don't? This is just disgusting. No president in the last 100 years has had to deal with this kind of nonsense.

 

Wait - I take that back. Bush had to deal with something similar, when an Iraqi "reporter" threw a shoe at him.

 

Congratulations, Conservative Pundits. You're taking your cues from Iraq now.

 

Kudos.

Are you actually trying to claim that "conservative pundits" or those who may share similar policy opinions (conservatives) are the same as this jackwagon who was rude to the President? Also, it sort of seems like you feel Obama has been treated more unfairly and with less respect by conservatives than Bush was by Liberals.

 

I will agree that the whole political climate has gotten downright distasteful but I sure don't see it as any kind of one sided affair. It got plain ugly the last few years of Bush's presidency and hasn't improved since but I think we can match stories one for one of pundits or other elected officials showing disrespect to either Bush or Obama. I thought you were a little more even-handed than trying to claim this type of thing as being worse one way than the other.

[HoustonSker]

I'm sorry to say that this may be a reasonable proposition, but given the timing, BHO is ginning up the Latino population.

 

Haha! Sorry to say? It's amusing the lengths that you're going to find something to criticize about him even when you agree with a policy he is making.

 

There must be no good that he can possibly do in the eyes of some - since doing so would invariably indicate election-year pandering to demographics.

 

I'm glad you got a laugh, cheers. I don't think I'm stretching when I agree with the proposal, but questioning the timing. Sure, BHO might issue this statement, but what is the probability that this will actually take effect...slim, I would conjecture. Reference his recent gay marriage evolution as another example, oh yeah, and the war on women. I can't possibly think why he would bring up those topics at this point in time...these are simply sideline topics that have no real chance of passing aka a waste of time. Jesus, I've wasted too much time already just thinking about it haha.

 

Just so I don't come off as some completely biased dbag...BHO's foreign policy tactics have impressed me. I'm glad he added HRC (and the always peppery BC) to his lineup. She's probably been the best teammate and adds a lot of credibility to his administration.

 

Anyways, I'll agree with the proposal's broad objective, but I think it will be possible to enact especially at this point in time with Congress, the election, and the economy. I doubt legal citizens would be willing to add hundreds of thousands of newly legal competitors to the ranks of job seekers given the weak recovery.