Obama puts hold on derpoting certain illegal immigrants

[CaptainMattJ.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us...mmigrants.html

Are we ever going to get a leader that will stand up to illegal immigrants? The only thing this will change is the flow of illegals, which will grow exponentially, with parents dragging along more and more anchor babies and children.

Where do we stop. When will we finally shut down the borders and stand up to these illegal immigrants. the mexican government outwardly encourages illegal immigrants, even giving them pointers, BROCHURES on how to sneak across, yet we arent doing anything about it.

When will we stop letting in these illegal immigrants with open arms.

[GoldenRivet]

Commander ass hat has gotta get his votes somewhere.

During the last presidential election I *at least* respected the guy.

Now I can't stand the stupid bastard

-the unedited version of this post contained about a dozen swear words-

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Are we ever going to get a leader that will stand up to... .

Their word? No probably not.

[the_tyrant]

To be fair, it is a way of recouping the investment the US has put into these children

I mean, come on, attending school in the US must not be cheap for the government. Why send them back to mexico, where the expense is footed by the US government but the mexican one gets to take income taxes from them?

[mookiemookie]

On one hand this doesn't do anything to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. It doesn't do anything to keep illegal immigrants from taking up school spots and scholarships from legal residents.

But on the other hand, deporting someone who entered the country illegal through no choice of their own, with no understanding of the consequences of this choice that was made for them, no other life or means of making a life someplace else...I don't know how much sense that makes either. I suppose it's a good thing that they have an opportunity to become legal where they didn't before.

Pretty conflicted about this. I see both sides of the argument. But in any case what's worrying is the number of ways that both Bush and Obama have come up with to circumvent the lawmaking process. These legal loopholes that let a president pretty much do what they want are not the way the system is supposed to work. Whether or not you agree with what they've done using these processes, it sets a precedent for future presidents. I shudder to think of the policies that a President Palin would enact using signing statements and the like.

[Betonov]

Weed out the leeches and troublemakers from hard-workers and brains. Keep the good seed and deport the rest

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Pretty conflicted about this. I see both sides of the argument.

I don't often agree with the Mookster - but there is a moral and ethical side to this. You shouldn't punish someone who has not - by their own choice and action - committed a crime. Mere existence isn't a crime.

My issue isn't the reason behind it - its how its being done and the effect it will have. Not only is it an end run around Congress as Mookie pointed out - but its timing is highly suspect. Still, lets move past that.

This is an unmitigated disaster for the economic prospects of many American citizens. Unemployment was already creeping up, people were leaving the workforce due to lack of jobs, and now anywhere from 800k to 3 Million additional "workers" just got dumped into the equation. How is that good for the guy on the street that has already been looking for work for the last 18 months?

The immigration aspect of this also is a disaster, but that will take some time to see. Mark my words - this will turn out to be a huge error for us all.

The topic is one that must be dealt with - but we have Congress for reasons - one of which is that the Senate is supposed to be the "deliberative" body - the one that slows things down and THINKS about the results of actions before they are implimented. End runs - especially on legislation that has already failed - often has disastrous results. This will be one of those. Brace yourselves, we are in for a bumpy ride.

[Rockin Robbins]

Right or wrong, the president does not have the power to decide to change or simply not enforce the law of the land. He took an oath of office to uphold those laws and his action of yesterday is actually an impeachable offense. Hopefully nobody will push that impeachment button. Simply revealing that the position is against the law is sufficient.

He said so himself last year, that he did not have the power to change the law and it will be very difficult for him to escape the power or his own words on the issue. We are not an autocracy, we are a government of three branches, each having its specific function to balance the power of the other two.

If what he wants is a good idea, the right way to do business is for Congress to pass a law and then for the executive branch to enforce it. Rule by executive fiat is for other lands, not ours.