Will Obama Pass Amnesty Via Executive Order

[pocketfullofshells]

He will have Reagan do it

 

[Texas_tea]

Do you have the same opinion of every other president going back to Eisenhower, none of whom enforced the immigration laws?

President Eisenhower was in office when Operation Wet Back was instituted. Making elementary school excuses for the lawless acts of your messiah doesn't help your defense of him in anyway.

There is an element of truth that the Federal Government has mismanaged illegal immigration in this country all along.

But, that is not the point here nor does it excuse Obama's lawlessness in his deliberate and orchestrated illegal immigration crisis.

 

[PLC1]

Obama's continued insistence that he is going to change, by fiat, immigration policy - no matter what the American people have told THEIR elected representative - when coupled with his consistent support of 'amnesty-type' policies, has created an expectation that the US will allow illegal immigrants to stay once they get here. His refusal to deport illegal immigrants, known to be criminals in their home country - his support for the 'military service pathway' to citizenship, as well as his very public support of the DREAM act clearly convey his acceptance of illegal immigration.

When you add to that actions by his administration to prevent states from implementing anti-illegal immigration laws (whether it is gutting Arizona's attempts, blocking Texas, or fiercely fighting things like voter registration - which would make ID mandatory - or supporting medicare/medicaid support for illegals, driver's licenses in various states, as well as eliminating the requirement to show citizenship to receive food and welfare benefits), and by his refusal to take immediate action regarding the current crisis at the border, he has cultivated an environment welcoming illegal immigration.

My only question - you know all this. I didn't tell you anything you didn't know. Why would you ask? Are you choosing to ignore this reality, or is it simply that you don't want to believe all this? You can't seriously believe that he is interested in border and immigration control, can you? Do you actually believe that his actions have not encouraged the massive wave of illegals?

well, let's see.

Amnesty "type" policies? I'm not sure just what that would mean. The coyotes are telling the parents of potential juvenile illegals that they may be allowed to stay, thus recruiting children to seek refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs". What they're saying has a ring of truth to it, as the law requires that minors arriving from Central America have a right to a trial, which isn't going to be a speedy trial due to the numbers of new arrivals. Obama has asked for money to speed those trials along, but the Congress has refused that. Boehner, in fact, says that Obama should act alone, without the consent of Congress, to speed this issue along.

The so called "Dream Act" has nothing to do iwth the new arrivals. It only applies to people who were brought to the USA as small children and raised here as Americans. How it would be a bad thing to pass the "Dream Act" escapes me.

Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. That it isn't being, and hasn't been for decades, doesn't suddenly give the states the responsibility of dealing with the issue.

Voter ID is a great idea, but has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

Yes, applicants for any sort of government services or for any employment in the USA should have to prove legal status, but that's never happened and wont' happen as long as the big political donors want the cheap labor.

Now, has illegal immigration increased in the past few years? I don't know, but I do know that when the real amnesty bill was signed into law by President Reagan it did increase dramatically.

Is Obama pro amnesty? That seems to be the prevailing opinion, but has few facts to support it.

And no, you haven't told me anything I didn't already know, and I doubt I've told you anything you didn't know.

 

[GBFan]

well, let's see.

Amnesty "type" policies? I'm not sure just what that would mean. The coyotes are telling the parents of potential juvenile illegals that they may be allowed to stay, thus recruiting children to seek refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs". What they're saying has a ring of truth to it, as the law requires that minors arriving from Central America have a right to a trial, which isn't going to be a speedy trial due to the numbers of new arrivals. Obama has asked for money to speed those trials along, but the Congress has refused that. Boehner, in fact, says that Obama should act alone, without the consent of Congress, to speed this issue along.

The so called "Dream Act" has nothing to do iwth the new arrivals. It only applies to people who were brought to the USA as small children and raised here as Americans. How it would be a bad thing to pass the "Dream Act" escapes me.

Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. That it isn't being, and hasn't been for decades, doesn't suddenly give the states the responsibility of dealing with the issue.

Voter ID is a great idea, but has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

Yes, applicants for any sort of government services or for any employment in the USA should have to prove legal status, but that's never happened and wont' happen as long as the big political donors want the cheap labor.

Now, has illegal immigration increased in the past few years? I don't know, but I do know that when the real amnesty bill was signed into law by President Reagan it did increase dramatically.

Is Obama pro amnesty? That seems to be the prevailing opinion, but has few facts to support it.

And no, you haven't told me anything I didn't already know, and I doubt I've told you anything you didn't know.

Wow --- a lot of misdirection in this one.

Let's start at the top ...
"The coyotes are telling the parents of potential juvenile illegals that they may be allowed to stay, thus recruiting children to seek refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs". "

Actually, while this is popular (and fills the 'emotional' need) ... it is, simply, not true. Interviews with the illegal minors have shown that they are NOT fleeing their government, or drug cartels, but rather, trying to improve their lives or join other family members who have come here ahead of them.

"... the law requires that minors arriving from Central America have a right to a trial, which isn't going to be a speedy trial due to the numbers of new arrivals. Obama has asked for money to speed those trials along, but the Congress has refused that. "

Again, not true ... if they are claiming that they are trying to avoid sexual abuse, then they are authorized a trial. Less than 2% have claimed that. The supposed idea that ALL minor illegals are afforded a 'trial' is a Democrat concoction. Further, Obama asked for $3.7 billion to conduct trials for 60,000 illegal minors ... that amounts to about $60K per trial ... quite a number for a administrative exercise that lasts, on average, about 30 minutes. Then, if you apply the actual law - and only provide the trial to the 2% (about 800), that means each trial costs about $4.6 million per trial, or about $153,000 per minute.

But, let's assume that, in fact, the law says that ALL minor illegals must be afforded the trial - given Obama's willingness to waive portions of our laws (for his political convenience), can you think of any reason he simply wouldn't use his 'pen and a phone' and streamline the process?

"The so called "Dream Act" has nothing to do iwth the new arrivals. It only applies to people who were brought to the USA as small children and raised here as Americans. How it would be a bad thing to pass the "Dream Act" escapes me. "

While the Dream Act does not apply directly to the new arrivals, it is indicative of the Obama administration position regarding illegal immigration which, after all, was the actual subject of the post. Why is it a bad thing? Because it does not hold a certain segment of our society to the rule of law ... the basis of our country .. but rather, gives them special dispensation.

"Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. That it isn't being, and hasn't been for decades, doesn't suddenly give the states the responsibility of dealing with the issue. "

We shall agree to disagree ... I voted for my governor, and paid my taxes, for my state to provide security to me and my family. I expect them, after recognizing the failure of the federal government to exercise its duties, to enact laws, and enforce laws, that provide me that security. States have a responsibility, and a requirement, to protect their own borders - even the ones that lead to other countries.

"Voter ID is a great idea, but has nothing to do with illegal immigration."

Again, you are intentionally using misdirection to obfuscate the argument. If you choose to recall, part of the hubbub between Arizona and the federal government was that AZ was going to require Voter IDs, and use those IDs to control/prevent spending for Medicare/Medicaid and welfare services for illegal immigrants. His administration fought this, they won, and people have died ... gotta make ya proud, don't ya think?

"Yes, applicants for any sort of government services or for any employment in the USA should have to prove legal status, but that's never happened and wont' happen as long as the big political donors want the cheap labor."

Finally - the Holy Grail of the left! Too bad it's a lie ... built on misinformation and misdirection. You are aware, of course, that businesses ARE required to verify the citizenship of EVERY employee, right? You ARE aware that the government is required to enforce those laws ... fine the company, and (OMG!) arrest the illegal immigrants and deport them. You knew all that, right?

So, tell me, when is the last time you have heard that enforced? I'll give you a hint ... the DOJ (you know, the guys who work for Obama) has declared that enforcing these laws are "not a priority". You will find isolated incidents of application of the law ... guess against who!! EVERY application of the law since 2009 have been against non-union shops. Probably just a coincidence, huh?

Now - let me tell you where the misdirection comes from - if you ask for proof, every leftist points to a government study that shows that a LEGAL Mexican immigrant makes about 40% MORE than an illegal Mexican immigrant. So, let's see .. a person who has proven they are fluent in English, have studied and passed a citizenship test, and have lived in-country for years, makes more than an illegal immigrant who can't speak English, doesn't understand our society, and lives in the shadows. And, somehow, this comes as a surprise to you?

So, we have a person who can't communicate, can't deal with the public, isn't aware of our laws, customs, rules, and regulations, are uneducated, and they only make, on average, $7.00 an hour? Frankly, I'm surprised they can find a job at all. Oh, by the way ... that makes them eligible for welfare, medicaid, etc. The average person receiving government assistance makes about $42,000 above their regular income. Uneducated, unskilled, and making $50K a year ... not a bad deal.

Is Obama pro amnesty? That seems to be the prevailing opinion, but has few facts to support it.

Now, you're talking with your heart, cuz your mind knows better.

 

[Texas_tea]

Forgive me PLC1 for pointing out what a brainwashed idiot you are .... no really forgive me ....

well, let's see.

Amnesty "type" policies? I'm not sure just what that would mean. The coyotes are telling the parents of potential juvenile illegals that they may be allowed to stay, thus recruiting children to seek refuge in the US.

WTF ever gave you the brainwashed idea that the "coyotes" are recruiting anyone? Your messiah is the recruiter .... have a link to back up your insanity that shows any of these illegals are seeking refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs"?

What they're saying has a ring of truth to it, as the law requires that minors arriving from Central America have a right to a trial, which isn't going to be a speedy trial due to the numbers of new arrivals.

There is no "speedy trial" with this many illegals ... Ask yourself why children outside the Convention on the Rights of Children are being flooded into this country .... although all normal thinking Americans know that these are not exactly "children" ...... probably too much for a sick brainwashed liberal mind , huh ..

Obama has asked for money to speed those trials along, but the Congress has refused that. Boehner, in fact, says that Obama should act alone, without the consent of Congress, to speed this issue along.

Obama has asked for money to continue this insanity ... and now brainwashed idiot leftist such as yourself are ready for him to act outside the US Constitution ..... Really? Sick insanity much?

The so called "Dream Act" has nothing to do iwth the new arrivals. It only applies to people who were brought to the USA as small children and raised here as Americans. How it would be a bad thing to pass the "Dream Act" escapes me.

It escapes you because you are a low/no information idiot (please forgive me) it has nothing to do with "dreamers" and everything to do with this regime acting outside the US Constitution!

Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. That it isn't being, and hasn't been for decades, doesn't suddenly give the states the responsibility of dealing with the issue.

The Federal Government has decades of failure to address this issue .... it absolutely give the states the right to protect the citizens that the federal government has failed to do ....

Voter ID is a great idea, but has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it ....

Yes, applicants for any sort of government services or for any employment in the USA should have to prove legal status, but that's never happened and wont' happen as long as the big political donors want the cheap labor.

This has nothing to do with cheap labor and your brainwashed leftist ideology from the government complex media rings on deaf ears for the informed Americans in this country.

Now, has illegal immigration increased in the past few years? I don't know, but I do know that when the real amnesty bill was signed into law by President Reagan it did increase dramatically.

No you don't know because you are MSM brainwashed idiot ... all normal thinking Americans realize that this is more propagandist lies ...

Is Obama pro amnesty? That seems to be the prevailing opinion, but has few facts to support it.

Facts clearly support otherwise ..... one simply has to look outside the brainwashed MSM ....

And no, you haven't told me anything I didn't already know, and I doubt I've told you anything you didn't know.

There is no cure for a diseased liberal mind .... forgive me PCL1 ...... but clearly you are the poster child for this infliction!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Wow --- a lot of misdirection in this one.

Let's start at the top ...
"The coyotes are telling the parents of potential juvenile illegals that they may be allowed to stay, thus recruiting children to seek refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs". "

Actually, while this is popular (and fills the 'emotional' need) ... it is, simply, not true. Interviews with the illegal minors have shown that they are NOT fleeing their government, or drug cartels, but rather, trying to improve their lives or join other family members who have come here ahead of them.

"... the law requires that minors arriving from Central America have a right to a trial, which isn't going to be a speedy trial due to the numbers of new arrivals. Obama has asked for money to speed those trials along, but the Congress has refused that. "

Again, not true ... if they are claiming that they are trying to avoid sexual abuse, then they are authorized a trial. Less than 2% have claimed that. The supposed idea that ALL minor illegals are afforded a 'trial' is a Democrat concoction. Further, Obama asked for $3.7 billion to conduct trials for 60,000 illegal minors ... that amounts to about $60K per trial ... quite a number for a administrative exercise that lasts, on average, about 30 minutes. Then, if you apply the actual law - and only provide the trial to the 2% (about 800), that means each trial costs about $4.6 million per trial, or about $153,000 per minute.

But, let's assume that, in fact, the law says that ALL minor illegals must be afforded the trial - given Obama's willingness to waive portions of our laws (for his political convenience), can you think of any reason he simply wouldn't use his 'pen and a phone' and streamline the process?

"The so called "Dream Act" has nothing to do iwth the new arrivals. It only applies to people who were brought to the USA as small children and raised here as Americans. How it would be a bad thing to pass the "Dream Act" escapes me. "

While the Dream Act does not apply directly to the new arrivals, it is indicative of the Obama administration position regarding illegal immigration which, after all, was the actual subject of the post. Why is it a bad thing? Because it does not hold a certain segment of our society to the rule of law ... the basis of our country .. but rather, gives them special dispensation.

"Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. That it isn't being, and hasn't been for decades, doesn't suddenly give the states the responsibility of dealing with the issue. "

We shall agree to disagree ... I voted for my governor, and paid my taxes, for my state to provide security to me and my family. I expect them, after recognizing the failure of the federal government to exercise its duties, to enact laws, and enforce laws, that provide me that security. States have a responsibility, and a requirement, to protect their own borders - even the ones that lead to other countries.
"Voter ID is a great idea, but has nothing to do with illegal immigration."

Again, you are intentionally using misdirection to obfuscate the argument. If you choose to recall, part of the hubbub between Arizona and the federal government was that AZ was going to require Voter IDs, and use those IDs to control/prevent spending for Medicare/Medicaid and welfare services for illegal immigrants. His administration fought this, they won, and people have died ... gotta make ya proud, don't ya think?

"Yes, applicants for any sort of government services or for any employment in the USA should have to prove legal status, but that's never happened and wont' happen as long as the big political donors want the cheap labor."

Finally - the Holy Grail of the left! Too bad it's a lie ... built on misinformation and misdirection. You are aware, of course, that businesses ARE required to verify the citizenship of EVERY employee, right? You ARE aware that the government is required to enforce those laws ... fine the company, and (OMG!) arrest the illegal immigrants and deport them. You knew all that, right?

So, tell me, when is the last time you have heard that enforced? I'll give you a hint ... the DOJ (you know, the guys who work for Obama) has declared that enforcing these laws are "not a priority". You will find isolated incidents of application of the law ... guess against who!! EVERY application of the law since 2009 have been against non-union shops. Probably just a coincidence, huh?

Now - let me tell you where the misdirection comes from - if you ask for proof, every leftist points to a government study that shows that a LEGAL Mexican immigrant makes about 40% MORE than an illegal Mexican immigrant. So, let's see .. a person who has proven they are fluent in English, have studied and passed a citizenship test, and have lived in-country for years, makes more than an illegal immigrant who can't speak English, doesn't understand our society, and lives in the shadows. And, somehow, this comes as a surprise to you?

So, we have a person who can't communicate, can't deal with the public, isn't aware of our laws, customs, rules, and regulations, are uneducated, and they only make, on average, $7.00 an hour? Frankly, I'm surprised they can find a job at all. Oh, by the way ... that makes them eligible for welfare, medicaid, etc. The average person receiving government assistance makes about $42,000 above their regular income. Uneducated, unskilled, and making $50K a year ... not a bad deal.
Is Obama pro amnesty? That seems to be the prevailing opinion, but has few facts to support it.

Now, you're talking with your heart, cuz your mind knows better.

yes he said look facts and you said no I need to look someplace else. You should give up trying

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Forgive me PLC1 for pointing out what a brainwashed idiot you are .... no really forgive me ....


WTF ever gave you the brainwashed idea that the "coyotes" are recruiting anyone? Your messiah is the recruiter .... have a link to back up your insanity that shows any of these illegals are seeking refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs"?


There is no "speedy trial" with this many illegals ... Ask yourself why children outside the Convention on the Rights of Children are being flooded into this country .... although all normal thinking Americans know that these are not exactly "children" ...... probably too much for a sick brainwashed liberal mind , huh ..


Obama has asked for money to continue this insanity ... and now brainwashed idiot leftist such as yourself are ready for him to act outside the US Constitution ..... Really? Sick insanity much?


It escapes you because you are a low/no information idiot (please forgive me) it has nothing to do with "dreamers" and everything to do with this regime acting outside the US Constitution!



The Federal Government has decades of failure to address this issue .... it absolutely give the states the right to protect the citizens that the federal government has failed to do ....


It has EVERYTHING to do with it ....


This has nothing to do with cheap labor and your brainwashed leftist ideology from the government complex media rings on deaf ears for the informed Americans in this country.


No you don't know because you are MSM brainwashed idiot ... all normal thinking Americans realize that this is more propagandist lies ...


Facts clearly support otherwise ..... one simply has to look outside the brainwashed MSM ....



There is no cure for a diseased liberal mind .... forgive me PCL1 ...... but clearly you are the poster child for this infliction!

oo a personal attack , quick ban him! ahhhh

little troll put your hood on and go away

 

[GBFan]

Wednesday on MSNBC's "Hardball," host Chris Matthews discussing the presidential press conference that had just wrapped up, said he understood President Barack Obama's answer to whether he will grant work permits essentially creating amnesty for up to 5 million illegal immigrants living in the United States was "yes."
Matthews said, "His answer to me was yes -- I'm going to issue some kind of system whereby people get relief from deportation or whatever it is. The government of the United States is going to in effect give work permits to people in this country illegally."

The MSNBC host added, "Let's go to something the former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said -- 'Let no crisis go unexploited,' something to that extent. These young people on the border, everyone knows we have to address it. that means executive discretion. I'm also going to deal with that other problem. I will leave some people of the enforcement. He is talking about a big solution. When you talk about work permits, you talk about up to 5 million people, a huge -- this is an Emancipation Proclamation."

 

[GBFan]

President Obama's executive actions on immigration did not begin with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in mid-2012. It began in 2011 with his announcement of "prosecutorial discretion" on deportations. A few months later the border patrol noted the first uptick in unaccompanied children at the border.

There has been an ongoing argument in the public sphere over whether or not President Obama's executive action known as DACA is responsible for the current surge of unaccompanied children at the border. GOP members have claimed it is a contributing factor and some note that the June 15, 2012 announcement seems to coincide with the sharpest uptick in children arriving from Central America.

Progressives looking to dismiss this claim have pointed out that the first indications of a surge in the number of children took place in FY2012. Fiscal Year 2012 included the last part of 2011 as well as the first half of 2012, i.e. about eight months before DACA even existed. This, they claim, proves the problem could not have been caused by DACA. For example, this Vox explainer on whether the President's policies encouraged the trend currently reads:

while the Obama administration itself has stressed that it doesn't think DACA is a factor, officials including Vice President Joe Biden have also tried to tell Central American families that children shouldn't come because they won't be eligible for DACA — which reinforces the notion that the two are connected.

However, the influx of unaccompanied children started in the fall of 2011 — DACA wasn't announced until June of 2012.

The card's exculpatory statement about DACA is misleading. While it's true the surge of minors began before DACA, it's also true that DACA was not the first time the President used his executive authority on immigration.

A year earlier in June 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released the so-called Morton memos. The Morton memos were internal ICE memos which spelled out an expansion of "prosecutorial discretion" for certain individuals who might otherwise be facing deportation. This was one of the solutions to bypass Congress which progressive groups had recommended earlier in 2011.

In August, the White House announced it would expand the use of prosecutorial discretion as outlined in the Morton Memos. and review all current cases with an eye to separating high priority and low priority deportations. The White House announcement read in part:

Under the President’s direction, for the first time ever the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States...Today, they announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resourceson deporting people who are low priorities for deportation. This includes individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home.

During the summer and fall of 2011 the promise of "prosecutorial discretion" made big waves in immigrant communities. In fact, almost immediately there was concern that disreputable people were spreading false information about what "prosecutorial discretion" would mean. On August 20, 2011, two days after the White House announcement, the American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a warning (in English and Spanish) titled "Consumer Advisory Do Not Be Misled." The advisory reads:

Do NOT believe anyone who tells you they can sign you up for a work permit (Employment Authorization Document or “EAD”) or get you legal status based on the Secretary Napolitano’s August 18, 2011 announcement! Anyone who says that is not to be trusted!

The American Immigration Lawyers Association was sufficiently concerned that they issued a second version of the memo four months later in December 2011.

It's clear from contemporaneous statements made by individual immigration attorneys that there was significant confusion about what the change meant. For instance, NY immigration attorney Allen Kaye said at the time, "there's a lot of misinformation about this and many people think there's a new immigration law, there's a new amnesty. No, it's just a policy."

In January 2012, California immigration attorney Shah Peerally published a video saying, "This is something that we have been seeing a lot on our radio show. There was a new memo that came out from DHS, Department of Homeland Security, which gives what we call a new prosecutorial discretion...however some people have taken advantage of that and are claiming now that this is an amnesty." He was relying in part on the AILA warning memo.

Word of the new DHS rules also spread to regular people concerned about their immigration status. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez held a townhall event in October 2011 (video below) to describe the importance of the new prosecutorial discretion. Speaking alternately in Spanish and English Gutiérrez described it as, "a new tool, it's a new instrument and we should learn how to use it." Gutiérrez offered an example of how he believed the new rules would be applied:

"There are 300,000 people in a process of deportation right now and they all have to get reviewed. And you have to review all of those cases using new criteria...What the federal government has said is that if you're a young--if you came here when you were 3, 2, 4, as a young child and you're an adult now and you're under a process of deportation, the federal government will cancel your deportation...Everybody always claps, all I have to do is mention two words, Dream Act. Right? Everybody claps. Well guess what. If you're Dream Act eligible under the new criteria they must cancel your deportation."

Gutiérrez went on to say that the new rules were not a new amnesty but he certainly left the impression that "prosecutorial discretion" was a significant change and that many people's deportations would be cancelled as a result.

Gutiérrez was also right that the 2011 shift represented a first step toward a kind of Dream Act accomplished without Congress. The White House's executive actions on immigration are best seen as a series of changes that built upon one another toward this goal. First the Morton memos in June 2011 introduced new prosecutorial discretion to close cases on non-violent immigrants. Then in August the White House used the memos to announce a review of all pending cases under the new guidelines. Finally in June 2012 the White House announced DACA, a more formal process to defer deportation and help people gain work permits.

The suggestion that the current border crisis can't possibly be connected to the President's policies because of the timeline is simply false. The President announced a new policy in August 2011 which led to confusion and significant concern that people would be taken advantage of by those promising them work permits or amnesty. The best evidence suggests the first uptick of children at the border began about two months later in October.

It's always possible to claim this is a case of correlation not causation, but there must be a reason our efforts to combat the crisis so far have focused on public awareness about DACA in Central America. As of last month, we are spending a million dollars on these media campaign abroad. Clearly, someone in the White House believes confusion over recent policy changes is a big factor in the current crisis.​

 

[PLC1]

Wow --- a lot of misdirection in this one.

Let's start at the top ...
"The coyotes are telling the parents of potential juvenile illegals that they may be allowed to stay, thus recruiting children to seek refuge in the US from drug dealers fueled by our "war on drugs". "

Actually, while this is popular (and fills the 'emotional' need) ... it is, simply, not true. Interviews with the illegal minors have shown that they are NOT fleeing their government, or drug cartels, but rather, trying to improve their lives or join other family members who have come here ahead of them.

"... the law requires that minors arriving from Central America have a right to a trial, which isn't going to be a speedy trial due to the numbers of new arrivals. Obama has asked for money to speed those trials along, but the Congress has refused that. "

Again, not true ... if they are claiming that they are trying to avoid sexual abuse, then they are authorized a trial. Less than 2% have claimed that. The supposed idea that ALL minor illegals are afforded a 'trial' is a Democrat concoction. Further, Obama asked for $3.7 billion to conduct trials for 60,000 illegal minors ... that amounts to about $60K per trial ... quite a number for a administrative exercise that lasts, on average, about 30 minutes. Then, if you apply the actual law - and only provide the trial to the 2% (about 800), that means each trial costs about $4.6 million per trial, or about $153,000 per minute.

But, let's assume that, in fact, the law says that ALL minor illegals must be afforded the trial - given Obama's willingness to waive portions of our laws (for his political convenience), can you think of any reason he simply wouldn't use his 'pen and a phone' and streamline the process?

"The so called "Dream Act" has nothing to do iwth the new arrivals. It only applies to people who were brought to the USA as small children and raised here as Americans. How it would be a bad thing to pass the "Dream Act" escapes me. "

While the Dream Act does not apply directly to the new arrivals, it is indicative of the Obama administration position regarding illegal immigration which, after all, was the actual subject of the post. Why is it a bad thing? Because it does not hold a certain segment of our society to the rule of law ... the basis of our country .. but rather, gives them special dispensation.

"Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. That it isn't being, and hasn't been for decades, doesn't suddenly give the states the responsibility of dealing with the issue. "

We shall agree to disagree ... I voted for my governor, and paid my taxes, for my state to provide security to me and my family. I expect them, after recognizing the failure of the federal government to exercise its duties, to enact laws, and enforce laws, that provide me that security. States have a responsibility, and a requirement, to protect their own borders - even the ones that lead to other countries.
"Voter ID is a great idea, but has nothing to do with illegal immigration."

Again, you are intentionally using misdirection to obfuscate the argument. If you choose to recall, part of the hubbub between Arizona and the federal government was that AZ was going to require Voter IDs, and use those IDs to control/prevent spending for Medicare/Medicaid and welfare services for illegal immigrants. His administration fought this, they won, and people have died ... gotta make ya proud, don't ya think?

"Yes, applicants for any sort of government services or for any employment in the USA should have to prove legal status, but that's never happened and wont' happen as long as the big political donors want the cheap labor."

Finally - the Holy Grail of the left! Too bad it's a lie ... built on misinformation and misdirection. You are aware, of course, that businesses ARE required to verify the citizenship of EVERY employee, right? You ARE aware that the government is required to enforce those laws ... fine the company, and (OMG!) arrest the illegal immigrants and deport them. You knew all that, right?

So, tell me, when is the last time you have heard that enforced? I'll give you a hint ... the DOJ (you know, the guys who work for Obama) has declared that enforcing these laws are "not a priority". You will find isolated incidents of application of the law ... guess against who!! EVERY application of the law since 2009 have been against non-union shops. Probably just a coincidence, huh?

Now - let me tell you where the misdirection comes from - if you ask for proof, every leftist points to a government study that shows that a LEGAL Mexican immigrant makes about 40% MORE than an illegal Mexican immigrant. So, let's see .. a person who has proven they are fluent in English, have studied and passed a citizenship test, and have lived in-country for years, makes more than an illegal immigrant who can't speak English, doesn't understand our society, and lives in the shadows. And, somehow, this comes as a surprise to you?

So, we have a person who can't communicate, can't deal with the public, isn't aware of our laws, customs, rules, and regulations, are uneducated, and they only make, on average, $7.00 an hour? Frankly, I'm surprised they can find a job at all. Oh, by the way ... that makes them eligible for welfare, medicaid, etc. The average person receiving government assistance makes about $42,000 above their regular income. Uneducated, unskilled, and making $50K a year ... not a bad deal.
Is Obama pro amnesty? That seems to be the prevailing opinion, but has few facts to support it.

Now, you're talking with your heart, cuz your mind knows better.

"Holy Grail of the Left" LOL.

I'm not sure just where you hail from, but I live in the middle of farm country in California. I've seen the illegal immigration issue up close and personal. The fact of the matter is that the growers around here say that they can't harvest the crops without illegal labor. The counter argument is that they could, if they were willing to pay more. Maybe that's so, and maybe it's not, but there is ample evidence that the field work formerly done by teens and out of work adults is now being done by the illegals.

Now, one thing you said is true: I'd be very surprised to learn that illegals who don't speak English make more than legitimate immigrants who do. I'd be even more surprised if you could somehow back up that absurd statement.

But, the fact of the matter is not all illegals are monolingual Spanish speakers, and not all monolinguals are illegal, so the stereotype of the illegal refusing to learn English and then getting welfare is just t hat: a stereotype.

Here is some useful information about illegals and one industry that depends on them:

SACRAMENTO — Except for illegal immigrants, no group has more at stake in the national fight over immigration reform than California farmers.

"It doesn't pay to plant a product if you can't harvest it," notes Mark Teixeira of Santa Maria, who says he had to let 22 acres of vegetables rot last year because he couldn't find enough field hands to gather the crop. "That hurts."

As security has tightened along the California-Mexican border, the flow of illegal immigrant labor into the nation's most productive agriculture state has slowed significantly, farm interests say.

"It's very difficult to find crews compared to three or four years ago," reports Greg Wegis, a fifth-generation Kern County farmer who grows cherries, almonds, pistachios and tomatoes, among other crops.

Last year, Wegis had to cancel a cherry pick for lack of labor. "It cost me several thousand dollars."

I see the ad in the middle didn't copy. Too bad. I wanted to leave that in to show that this wasn't exactly a "left wing " sort of an article.

 

[GBFan]

"Holy Grail of the Left" LOL.

I'm not sure just where you hail from, but I live in the middle of farm country in California. I've seen the illegal immigration issue up close and personal. The fact of the matter is that the growers around here say that they can't harvest the crops without illegal labor. The counter argument is that they could, if they were willing to pay more. Maybe that's so, and maybe it's not, but there is ample evidence that the field work formerly done by teens and out of work adults is now being done by the illegals.

Now, one thing you said is true: I'd be very surprised to learn that illegals who don't speak English make more than legitimate immigrants who do. I'd be even more surprised if you could somehow back up that absurd statement.

But, the fact of the matter is not all illegals are monolingual Spanish speakers, and not all monolinguals are illegal, so the stereotype of the illegal refusing to learn English and then getting welfare is just t hat: a stereotype.

Here is some useful information about illegals and one industry that depends on them:




I see the ad in the middle didn't copy. Too bad. I wanted to leave that in to show that this wasn't exactly a "left wing " sort of an article.

Go back and read your article again ... you missed the point. Your cited reference says that illegal immigrant workers average $13/hour, and the quoted criminal said he provides healthcare and 401(k) benefits.

Now ... ask yourself. Why wouldn't a legalized, out of work, American refuse to work for $13/hour plus benefits? Because he's lazy ? No. Because it's too hard? No. Because government benefits outweigh what he can earn? Pretty much, huh? Why would you work for $25k a year, when you could get $40k sitting on your ... doing nothing?

But, let's assume it's all true ... why doesn't the farmer raise his wages? That's what all other companies do? Pay them $20/hour - heck, pay them $50/hour. Just like everybody else, he would pass the cost on to the consumer. But wait!!! You don't want to pay $20 for a flat of strawberries? You don't want to pay $10 for a head of lettuce? Well, ol' buddy, ya gotta make up your mind! You either pay at the store, or you pay in taxes to support the underclass created by your greed.

Once again, you try to take a single instance, and elevate it to a crime. In reality, less than 3% of all illegal immigrants are migrant farm workers. I notice you don't mention the illegal immigrants who work on the high rises in NY (average wage $38/hour).

I wonder - did you know that only 3% of illegal immigrants pick crops, but over 40% 'participate' in major welfare programs each year?? Did you also know that about "27 percent of such households received coverage from Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, while 33 percent received food assistance, such as free or reduced-price school lunches, food stamps, or benefits from the Women-Infants-Children program". Keep in mind - that is NOT individual - that is HOUSEHOLDS. I'm not even going to ask you about the efficacy of ignoring their violations of the law.

But, you misread what I said ... I said that illegal immigrants make 40% less than legal immigrants. I also said that some of the causative factors was lack of education, lack of skills, inability to navigate in our society (thus, the need for Hispanic-focused barrios, etc., which further exacerbates the problem), and, because of their illegal status, an inability to take advantage of the programs that would enhance their marketability. In short, legal and illegal immigrants enter the country with relatively the same assets (or lack of). Legal immigrants, who wish to stay here, make a studious effort to adapt, participate, and immerse themselves into our society. Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, (most of whom are here to work, earn money, and then go back home, since they have no path to citizenship) have no real motivation to integrate themselves into our society; thus, self improvement is not high on their list of priorities.

Now, for the preaching part - I'm sure you remember E Pluribus Unum - From Many, One - illegal immigrants who wish only to siphon off money, send it home, and then leave, who wish to live in an area that most closely resembles their home, who are not interested in learning our customs, and who are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, our laws, contribute nothing to the fabric of our society. They leech, and they leave ...

(Oh, by the way, I grew up picking green beans for a nickel a pound, tossing 100 lb hay bales for $.10/ bale, picked strawberries for $.25 a flat, and picked blueberries to sell until I reached a point where I don't care if I EVER see another one ... so, rest assured, I'm familiar with the work they do.)

 

[PLC1]

Go back and read your article again ... you missed the point. Your cited reference says that illegal immigrant workers average $13/hour, and the quoted criminal said he provides healthcare and 401(k) benefits.

Now ... ask yourself. Why wouldn't a legalized, out of work, American refuse to work for $13/hour plus benefits? Because he's lazy ? No. Because it's too hard? No. Because government benefits outweigh what he can earn? Pretty much, huh? Why would you work for $25k a year, when you could get $40k sitting on your ... doing nothing?

Of course that's the problem and the reason why the farmer needs illegals to gather in the crops. It's way too easy to live without working.

But, let's assume it's all true ... why doesn't the farmer raise his wages? That's what all other companies do? Pay them $20/hour - heck, pay them $50/hour. Just like everybody else, he would pass the cost on to the consumer. But wait!!! You don't want to pay $20 for a flat of strawberries? You don't want to pay $10 for a head of lettuce? Well, ol' buddy, ya gotta make up your mind! You either pay at the store, or you pay in taxes to support the underclass created by your greed.

Created by my greed? Sounds to me like it was created by the dependence on the welfare state.

There are options: End the welfare state. pay the workers enough to make it worth while for legal workers, or continue to ignore illegal immigration. Since no one wants to take option 1 or 2, then we're stuck with option 3.

Once again, you try to take a single instance, and elevate it to a crime. In reality, less than 3% of all illegal immigrants are migrant farm workers. I notice you don't mention the illegal immigrants who work on the high rises in NY (average wage $38/hour).

There I think you're making up stats. Let's see if you can prove me wrong.

Around here, most of the illegals are bringing in the crops and doing other farm labor, but then, this is an agricultural region.

I wonder - did you know that only 3% of illegal immigrants pick crops, but over 40% 'participate' in major welfare programs each year?? Did you also know that about "27 percent of such households received coverage from Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, while 33 percent received food assistance, such as free or reduced-price school lunches, food stamps, or benefits from the Women-Infants-Children program". Keep in mind - that is NOT individual - that is HOUSEHOLDS. I'm not even going to ask you about the efficacy of ignoring their violations of the law.

Once again, I suspect you're making up stats. If illegals are living off of the welfare state as you say, then why would they work for low wages? Wouldn't that put them in the same position as the legal workers who can make more without working?

Illegals I've known avoid any contact with the government.

But, you misread what I said ... I said that illegal immigrants make 40% less than legal immigrants. I also said that some of the causative factors was lack of education, lack of skills, inability to navigate in our society (thus, the need for Hispanic-focused barrios, etc., which further exacerbates the problem), and, because of their illegal status, an inability to take advantage of the programs that would enhance their marketability. In short, legal and illegal immigrants enter the country with relatively the same assets (or lack of). Legal immigrants, who wish to stay here, make a studious effort to adapt, participate, and immerse themselves into our society. Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, (most of whom are here to work, earn money, and then go back home, since they have no path to citizenship) have no real motivation to integrate themselves into our society; thus, self improvement is not high on their list of priorities.

Yes, I think that's generally correct. There are exceptions, of course.

and yes, I must have misread your quote. I understood you to say that illegals made more than legal immigrants.

Now, for the preaching part - I'm sure you remember E Pluribus Unum - From Many, One - illegal immigrants who wish only to siphon off money, send it home, and then leave, who wish to live in an area that most closely resembles their home, who are not interested in learning our customs, and who are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, our laws, contribute nothing to the fabric of our society. They leech, and they leave ...

which is why we need to put an end to illegal immigration. It isn't happening, of course, didn't happen when the Republicans were in power, isn't happening now that the Democrats have 2/3 of the government, didn't happen when the Democrats had it all, and won't until there are some major reforms.

(Oh, by the way, I grew up picking green beans for a nickel a pound, tossing 100 lb hay bales for $.10/ bale, picked strawberries for $.25 a flat, and picked blueberries to sell until I reached a point where I don't care if I EVER see another one ... so, rest assured, I'm familiar with the work they do.)

Me too. I remember hauling hay when it was done by hand, picking peaches, picking grapes. Back when I was doing that sort of thing, it wasn't done primarily by illegals.

and I wouldn't like to do that sort of thing again either, probably couldn't any more. I'm not 16 like I was back in the 1950s.

You have a point that, in order for Americans and legal residents to do farm work, we need to end the handouts, but then you claim that the illegals are getting handouts too. If that's so, then no one would work in the fields.

Bottom line: Illegals work cheap. Employers like people who work cheap. Moreover, they're unlikely to complain about problems with labor laws. They're an asset to the employer, but, as you said, we're subsidizing them.

And, as long as they continue to work cheap, the employers will keep the pressure on to look the other way and let them in.

 

[GBFan]

Of course that's the problem and the reason why the farmer needs illegals to gather in the crops. It's way too easy to live without working.



Created by my greed? Sounds to me like it was created by the dependence on the welfare state.

There are options: End the welfare state. pay the workers enough to make it worth while for legal workers, or continue to ignore illegal immigration. Since no one wants to take option 1 or 2, then we're stuck with option 3.



There I think you're making up stats. Let's see if you can prove me wrong.

Around here, most of the illegals are bringing in the crops and doing other farm labor, but then, this is an agricultural region.



Once again, I suspect you're making up stats. If illegals are living off of the welfare state as you say, then why would they work for low wages? Wouldn't that put them in the same position as the legal workers who can make more without working?

Illegals I've known avoid any contact with the government.



Yes, I think that's generally correct. There are exceptions, of course.

and yes, I must have misread your quote. I understood you to say that illegals made more than legal immigrants.



which is why we need to put an end to illegal immigration. It isn't happening, of course, didn't happen when the Republicans were in power, isn't happening now that the Democrats have 2/3 of the government, didn't happen when the Democrats had it all, and won't until there are some major reforms.




Me too. I remember hauling hay when it was done by hand, picking peaches, picking grapes. Back when I was doing that sort of thing, it wasn't done primarily by illegals.

and I wouldn't like to do that sort of thing again either, probably couldn't any more. I'm not 16 like I was back in the 1950s.

You have a point that, in order for Americans and legal residents to do farm work, we need to end the handouts, but then you claim that the illegals are getting handouts too. If that's so, then no one would work in the fields.

Bottom line: Illegals work cheap. Employers like people who work cheap. Moreover, they're unlikely to complain about problems with labor laws. They're an asset to the employer, but, as you said, we're subsidizing them.

And, as long as they continue to work cheap, the employers will keep the pressure on to look the other way and let them in.

"There I think you're making up stats. Let's see if you can prove me wrong. "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/20/ten-illegal-alien-facts-truth-o-meter/ (This is one of about 10 different sources - here's another - https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do)

I don't make stuff up ... if I say it, it's been written. Next time you think I lied, YOU prove it.

Apology accepted.

 

[PLC1]

"There I think you're making up stats. Let's see if you can prove me wrong. "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/20/ten-illegal-alien-facts-truth-o-meter/ (This is one of about 10 different sources - here's another - https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do)

I don't make stuff up ... if I say it, it's been written. Next time you think I lied, YOU prove it.

Apology accepted.

So, how dare I actually question your unsupported statements?

Let's see what it is you said:

Once again, you try to take a single instance, and elevate it to a crime. In reality, less than 3% of all illegal immigrants are migrant farm workers. I notice you don't mention the illegal immigrants who work on the high rises in NY (average wage $38/hour).

I wonder - did you know that only 3% of illegal immigrants pick crops, but over 40% 'participate' in major welfare programs each year?? Did you also know that about "27 percent of such households received coverage from Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, while 33 percent received food assistance, such as free or reduced-price school lunches, food stamps, or benefits from the Women-Infants-Children program". Keep in mind - that is NOT individual - that is HOUSEHOLDS. I'm not even going to ask you about the efficacy of ignoring their violations of the law.

3% pick crops... confirmed by your source.
40% receive welfare... busted by your own link

We suspect that when many people hear the term "welfare," they think of cash benefits. However, very little cash assistance is going to illegal immigrants. According to CIS, less than 1 percent of illegal-immigrant-headed households included anyone receiving direct government cash assistance, such as Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or state-run cash aid. This is not surprising: Illegal immigrants are generally barred from receiving such payments.

Illegal aliens making $38 an hour... couldn't find any reference to that one. I suppose it's possible that there could be a few examples.

But, then, I didn't try very hard. It's up to you, after all, to support your own statements. The "It's so because I said so" isn't good enough.

 

[GBFan]

So, how dare I actually question your unsupported statements?

Let's see what it is you said:



3% pick crops... confirmed by your source.
40% receive welfare... busted by your own link



Illegal aliens making $38 an hour... couldn't find any reference to that one. I suppose it's possible that there could be a few examples.

But, then, I didn't try very hard. It's up to you, after all, to support your own statements. The "It's so because I said so" isn't good enough.