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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

...his action of yesterday is actually an impeachable offense.

How so? I agree that this is a bad idea, but what High Crime or Misdemeanor was committed?

[gimpy117]

I remember and old legal precedent; it goes back to the days of feudal England. In it, was the Idea that if one lived in on land; openly and notoriously for around 8 years one would receive that land even if it wasn't theirs.The Idea was; that the lords would rather receive the taxes from these people; than give back the land and stop making money. I think we can draw parallels to this. what if certain Illegal Immigrants; or for this matter their Kids are making payments to Income tax? They are driving OUR economy...and also no the mention the fact that companies make more money off of their cheap labor. Lets face it; Illegals are a moneymaker...and who wants to shoot a gift horse in the mouth?

[Rockin Robbins]

Violation of his oath to enforce the laws of the land. That is the bedrock of the function of the executive branch of United States Government: to execute the laws. (hence the name of the branch)

We don't impeach people for real reasons, though. We need something sexy and appealing to the celeb loving crowd! We've reduced impeachment to a cynical act of "ours is bigger than yours."

Therefore I think that it is almost always the wrong thing to do. In Clinton's case, for instance, the only legitimate issue was one of national security--did top secret discussions take place with "others" without necessary security clearance present. As you recall, nobody asked that question. They were only interested in DNA analysis of the stain on her dress.....

After all Franklin Roosevelt committed impeachable offenses in saving the world for Western representative governments. Abraham Lincoln committed impeachable offenses in saving the Union. But neither was impeached, much less convicted. There are plenty of other examples.

Impeachment is traditionally a petty act of tyranny by congress to destroy a president they do not like, not the reluctant removal of a criminal that it was meant to be. We don't need to go there.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Violation of his oath to enforce the laws of the land. That is the bedrock of the function of the executive branch of United States Government: to execute the laws. (hence the name of the branch)

We don't impeach people for real reasons, though. We need something sexy and appealing to the celeb loving crowd! We've reduced impeachment to a cynical act of "ours is bigger than yours."

Therefore I think that it is almost always the wrong thing to do. In Clinton's case, for instance, the only legitimate issue was one of national security--did top secret discussions take place with "others" without necessary security clearance present. As you recall, nobody asked that question. They were only interested in DNA analysis of the stain on her dress.....

After all Franklin Roosevelt committed impeachable offenses in saving the world for Western representative governments. Abraham Lincoln committed impeachable offenses in saving the Union. But neither was impeached, much less convicted. There are plenty of other examples.

Impeachment is traditionally a petty act of tyranny by congress to destroy a president they do not like, not the reluctant removal of a criminal that it was meant to be. We don't need to go there.

Just for you RR:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

[Bilge_Rat]

Is it a political decision, obviously.

Is it an impeachable offence, obviously not.

No President has ever enforced every act of Congress 100% as Congress intended or even 100% as written or even every Act adopted by Congress. There is ample Constitutional precedent for what Obama has done.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I remember and old legal precedent; it goes back to the days of feudal England. In it, was the Idea that if one lived in on land; openly and notoriously for around 8 years one would receive that land even if it wasn't theirs.The Idea was; that the lords would rather receive the taxes from these people; than give back the land and stop making money. I think we can draw parallels to this. what if certain Illegal Immigrants; or for this matter their Kids are making payments to Income tax? They are driving OUR economy...and also no the mention the fact that companies make more money off of their cheap labor. Lets face it; Illegals are a moneymaker...and who wants to shoot a gift horse in the mouth?

There is a reason we have an immigration system. if everyone who wanted to get in got in, our country would be yet another 3rd world country. oversaturation wouldnt describe the job market if we allowed every immigrant that wanted to, free access to citizenship.

Illegal immigrants have been steadily lowering the standard of living in every area they settle down en masse. Because they tend to work for so little, companies hire them over citizens. because the immigrants earn so little and the citizen is now out of work, what now? people's standard of living goes down. Not to mention the criminal and financial burden of putting so many immigrants on welfare and being more inclined for children to lead a life of crime. our system cant deal with so many people flooding our system.

Sure, they arent responsible for being brought or born here, their parents are. Well what can we do against the parents, deport them and make the kid stay? That would only make things worse for these kids, and the system. So not just these kids are getting passes, but their whole family is allowed to stay. Its ridiculous. Illegal immigrants cause more problems than they help with.

And now, with rising college costs (AND the dream act, giving away money to illegal immigrants instead of the 10th generation American citizen who has to pay more and more for college), and the oversaturation of the job market, Citizen teens can no longer get jobs to support their way through college, making their need for student loans extreme and excessive. Theres more to this than an immigrant getting a job and paying taxes. we cant handle the amount of people that suddenly appear in the system, and its a fact. there are already alot of people in the lifeboat, taking on any more will slowly sink us further and further. Why people cant understand or take action against it is beyond me.

[nikimcbee]

@ Capt Matt,
Doesn't Kali-fornia allow illegals to pay "in-state tuition?" So, say, if I wanted to go to a CA school, I would get charged out of state tuition. But if I was not a legal US citizen, I could get in state tuition.