Obama Goes Around Congress Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How do you prove when you brought your illegal alien kid to this country ? How do you show documentation like that ? What documentation is that ?

SCOTUS is about to rule on the AZ Immigration Law, and this move was to soften the blow.[/quote]

This is exactly correct, he is merely pandering to get the Latino vote…possibly undermining the impact that Marco Rubio would have as Romney’s running mate.

Obama LOVES him some La Raza.

Maybe somebody should ask him how the states are supposed to pay for the 113 billion dollars that illegal immigrants cost every year.[/quote]

Did not Rubio have a similar type of proposal and accused Obama of stealing what he was planning?

And aside from other Cubans Rubio is not exactly liked by all Latinos.[/quote]

That’s because Rubio actually has a set of balls.

CS[/quote]

How so? He is against illegal immigration/dream act but, in favor of amnesty for Cubans.

He is on the short list for VP running mate and then plans something similar to what Obama passed. What, suddenly a change of heart? Seems like a way to get more Latino votes he was just beat to the punch.

22

A version of the Dream Act was proposed in 2010 I believe, it passed congress and then went to the senate where it received 55 votes, however due to the new way we do business it needed 60 votes to pass. All Obama did was what should have passed in 2010 anyway.

By the way Obama did not issue an Executive Order, he used powers granted to Homeland Security under Bush II to allow certain illegals to have a chance at maintaining their “good resident” status.

23

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]The memo said the government would not pursue immigrants who met five criteria. Individuals must:
?Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
?Be no older than 30,
?Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
?Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
?Have a clean criminal record.
[/quote]

If you add in a 6th: would not be eligable for state assistance.

I don’t see this as totally awful. Mexico sucks, giving these kids a chance to earn legit dollars and pay some taxes could help, instead of spending money to send them away.[/quote]

Mexico is jacked, lack of economic mobility while 3-7 families own everything. What gets me from both sides of the political spectrum is that neither side really want’s undocumented immigrants out of the country.

Dems want to pander in order to garner the vote, while big business/repubs want them to stay illegal and in country so they can hire them and take advantage of cheap labor for the sake of maximizing their profits.

If dems or repubs really wanted to solve the problem, they would impose impossible fines for hiring anybody who lacks documentation, make it enforceable, and enforce it.

A couple things would happen. Stock value would sink a bit, and many things not imported would become more expensive. Somebody has to raise your kids, clean your homes, do your landscaping, cook your food, pick your crops, butcher your animals, clean your resorts, cook for your restaurants, and help fight your wars. Mexican Americans have a rather illustrious history on the battlefield. I’m sure I missed a few things…

Mexican people have a legacy in the United States. I like to think of it like this, they are welcome to come plant, tend and pick crops, but once everything is reaped we turn around and call them wetback, or “illegal alien” (lol friggin hillarious).

Pretty awesome way we treat our more Christian than us Neighbors eh?

Anyhow, I’d like to see reform so we can stop blaming everything on the Mexicans, and so that their presence isn’t by default associated with some vote garnering/pandering or two facedness when it comes to labor/profit and drain on the economy.

24

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]The memo said the government would not pursue immigrants who met five criteria. Individuals must:
?Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
?Be no older than 30,
?Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
?Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
?Have a clean criminal record.
[/quote]

If you add in a 6th: would not be eligable for state assistance.

I don’t see this as totally awful. Mexico sucks, giving these kids a chance to earn legit dollars and pay some taxes could help, instead of spending money to send them away.[/quote]

Mexico is jacked, lack of economic mobility while 3-7 families own everything. What gets me from both sides of the political spectrum is that neither side really want’s undocumented immigrants out of the country.

Dems want to pander in order to garner the vote, while big business/repubs want them to stay illegal and in country so they can hire them and take advantage of cheap labor for the sake of maximizing their profits.

If dems or repubs really wanted to solve the problem, they would impose impossible fines for hiring anybody who lacks documentation, make it enforceable, and enforce it.

A couple things would happen. Stock value would sink a bit, and many things not imported would become more expensive. Somebody has to raise your kids, clean your homes, do your landscaping, cook your food, pick your crops, butcher your animals, clean your resorts, cook for your restaurants, and help fight your wars. Mexican Americans have a rather illustrious history on the battlefield. I’m sure I missed a few things…

Mexican people have a legacy in the United States. I like to think of it like this, they are welcome to come plant, tend and pick crops, but once everything is reaped we turn around and call them wetback, or “illegal alien” (lol friggin hillarious).

Pretty awesome way we treat our more Christian than us Neighbors eh?

Anyhow, I’d like to see reform so we can stop blaming everything on the Mexicans, and so that their presence isn’t by default associated with some vote garnering/pandering or two facedness when it comes to labor/profit and drain on the economy.
[/quote]

How do you propose to make up the 113 billion dollars that illegal immigrants cost the states and the federal government each year?

25

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]The memo said the government would not pursue immigrants who met five criteria. Individuals must:
?Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
?Be no older than 30,
?Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
?Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
?Have a clean criminal record.
[/quote]

If you add in a 6th: would not be eligable for state assistance.

I don’t see this as totally awful. Mexico sucks, giving these kids a chance to earn legit dollars and pay some taxes could help, instead of spending money to send them away.[/quote]

Mexico is jacked, lack of economic mobility while 3-7 families own everything. What gets me from both sides of the political spectrum is that neither side really want’s undocumented immigrants out of the country.

Dems want to pander in order to garner the vote, while big business/repubs want them to stay illegal and in country so they can hire them and take advantage of cheap labor for the sake of maximizing their profits.

If dems or repubs really wanted to solve the problem, they would impose impossible fines for hiring anybody who lacks documentation, make it enforceable, and enforce it.

A couple things would happen. Stock value would sink a bit, and many things not imported would become more expensive. Somebody has to raise your kids, clean your homes, do your landscaping, cook your food, pick your crops, butcher your animals, clean your resorts, cook for your restaurants, and help fight your wars. Mexican Americans have a rather illustrious history on the battlefield. I’m sure I missed a few things…

Mexican people have a legacy in the United States. I like to think of it like this, they are welcome to come plant, tend and pick crops, but once everything is reaped we turn around and call them wetback, or “illegal alien” (lol friggin hillarious).

Pretty awesome way we treat our more Christian than us Neighbors eh?

Anyhow, I’d like to see reform so we can stop blaming everything on the Mexicans, and so that their presence isn’t by default associated with some vote garnering/pandering or two facedness when it comes to labor/profit and drain on the economy.
[/quote]

There was a decent program in Costa Rica (at least in Guancasta) where they hire Nicaraguans temporarily to help harvest their sugar cane and then they get sent home after the harvest. They operate on work permits. I feel like that would be a decent solution here, you can track these people and pay them the substandard wages that they are already paid as they aren’t entitled to minimum wage as they are non-US citizens.

26

Congress is currently obstructionist for purely political reasons. Obama could say the sky is blue and congress will say no and then say that the sky is cerulean. If your president, how else do you go about business in that kind of situation?

27

Obama’s executive decision shows two items I believe. One, he doesn’t want to work with other people and political parties. Marco Rubio is soon to come out with a book to discuss a GOP plan for immigration reform. The President learned of this, and for political reasons did what he did, legal or not. The President could have worked with Marco Rubio and other GOP members at reforming immigration policy. He choose not to. His political move was clever though as it took away a campaign issue for the GOP.

The second item shows his lack of concern for our traditional form of government. Working outside of the frame work of the law basically, Obama has decided he is not going to enforce a law. What law is he not going to enforce next? Possibly the President to buy votes will decide that the IRS does not need to collect taxes from certain groups of people.

Thought economist Thomas Sowell had a nice write up on the President’s Dream act light decree.

“Obama’s Immigration Ploy Is Meant To Help Obama, Not The Nation”

http://news.investors.com/article/615249/201206181904/obama-immigration-policy-political-ploy.htm

28

Menthol,

Obama didn’t work outside of the law, he used powers that Bush II finagled for Homeland Security to make this happen. If congress wasn’t being such a pain in the ass and re-writing how we pass laws, this would have been done as the Dream Act in 2010.

29

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Menthol,

Obama didn’t work outside of the law, he used powers that Bush II finagled for Homeland Security to make this happen. If congress wasn’t being such a pain in the ass and re-writing how we pass laws, this would have been done as the Dream Act in 2010.[/quote]

Bush did it, so it’s okayâ?¦. HAH!

I’m going to assume then that you are okay with everything Bush did since “Bush did it” is valid justification.

Congress is responsible for their own method of passing laws as ordained by the constitution, how do you think they got the procedure in the first place? The president instituting specific policy on when to enforce and when not to enforce a law is directly outside of the powers granted in the constitution.

30

DD,

I merely pointed out that Obama used a power that was granted to the presidency by congress under Bush II, there was nothing nefarious in what he did, it was done under the auspices of the DHS. I suppose I could read through all of your posts, but since I don’t have that kind of time I will just assume you did not complain when Bush actually got these powers (if you were even aware that he got them, most of us weren’t).

31

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DD,

I merely pointed out that Obama used a power that was granted to the presidency by congress under Bush II, there was nothing nefarious in what he did, it was done under the auspices of the DHS. I suppose I could read through all of your posts, but since I don’t have that kind of time I will just assume you did not complain when Bush actually got these powers (if you were even aware that he got them, most of us weren’t).[/quote]

Yup. You are right. You didn’t read through my posts.

32

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Obama’s executive decision shows two items I believe. One, he doesn’t want to work with other people and political parties. Marco Rubio is soon to come out with a book to discuss a GOP plan for immigration reform. The President learned of this, and for political reasons did what he did, legal or not. The President could have worked with Marco Rubio and other GOP members at reforming immigration policy. He choose not to. His political move was clever though as it took away a campaign issue for the GOP.

The second item shows his lack of concern for our traditional form of government. Working outside of the frame work of the law basically, Obama has decided he is not going to enforce a law. What law is he not going to enforce next? Possibly the President to buy votes will decide that the IRS does not need to collect taxes from certain groups of people.

Thought economist Thomas Sowell had a nice write up on the President’s Dream act light decree.

“Obama’s Immigration Ploy Is Meant To Help Obama, Not The Nation”

http://news.investors.com/article/615249/201206181904/obama-immigration-policy-political-ploy.htm [/quote]

He tried to pass immigration reform through congress in 2010. It didn’t work. Also, keep in mind that this is not the first a president hasn’t gone through congress for immigration policy.

33

DD,

I went back and looked at 2008 and didn’t see any, then realized that you had only been a member since 2008 and assumed that since this power grab occurred prior to 2008 that you probably didn’t post about it here. So if you were against it and made a stink about it fantastic, I’m glad you were paying attention, but it doesn’t change the fact that it should have been done earlier in his presidency (like in 2010 when the GOP shit all over the Dream Act), but better late than never.

34

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DD,

I went back and looked at 2008 and didn’t see any, then realized that you had only been a member since 2008 and assumed that since this power grab occurred prior to 2008 that you probably didn’t post about it here. So if you were against it and made a stink about it fantastic, I’m glad you were paying attention, but it doesn’t change the fact that it should have been done earlier in his presidency (like in 2010 when the GOP shit all over the Dream Act), but better late than never.[/quote]

It’s a tough call as to which president I hate more and which I think was worse for the country.

35

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How do you prove when you brought your illegal alien kid to this country ? How do you show documentation like that ? What documentation is that ?

SCOTUS is about to rule on the AZ Immigration Law, and this move was to soften the blow.[/quote]

Medical/School records?[/quote]

Like those can’t be falsified ?

These are the same people who manage to get fake drivers licenses and Social Security Numbers/Cards.

Is anyone going to check if they are legit ? NOPE.

36

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]The memo said the government would not pursue immigrants who met five criteria. Individuals must:
?Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
?Be no older than 30,
?Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
?Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
?Have a clean criminal record.
[/quote]

If you add in a 6th: would not be eligable for state assistance.

I don’t see this as totally awful. Mexico sucks, giving these kids a chance to earn legit dollars and pay some taxes could help, instead of spending money to send them away.[/quote]

Mexico is jacked, lack of economic mobility while 3-7 families own everything. What gets me from both sides of the political spectrum is that neither side really want’s undocumented immigrants out of the country.

Dems want to pander in order to garner the vote, while big business/repubs want them to stay illegal and in country so they can hire them and take advantage of cheap labor for the sake of maximizing their profits.

If dems or repubs really wanted to solve the problem, they would impose impossible fines for hiring anybody who lacks documentation, make it enforceable, and enforce it.

A couple things would happen. Stock value would sink a bit, and many things not imported would become more expensive. Somebody has to raise your kids, clean your homes, do your landscaping, cook your food, pick your crops, butcher your animals, clean your resorts, cook for your restaurants, and help fight your wars. Mexican Americans have a rather illustrious history on the battlefield. I’m sure I missed a few things…

Mexican people have a legacy in the United States. I like to think of it like this, they are welcome to come plant, tend and pick crops, but once everything is reaped we turn around and call them wetback, or “illegal alien” (lol friggin hillarious).

Pretty awesome way we treat our more Christian than us Neighbors eh?

Anyhow, I’d like to see reform so we can stop blaming everything on the Mexicans, and so that their presence isn’t by default associated with some vote garnering/pandering or two facedness when it comes to labor/profit and drain on the economy.
[/quote]

You should look up the difference between neighbor and burglar.

37

I don’t get the whole proposal and how it will benefit the US. First, how does one prove when one got here? Second, they will still have to register for this and how many will want to do that? Third if you are 31, then you are F’d? What happens to the parents?
I say if someone can show they were in the US 7 years illegally, then they jump on this initiative with the condition that they will not be eligible for citizenship for 7 years nor are they eligible for any social services nor any other program. They are not required to be paid the minimum wage, etc, etc etc.