Does he have to? His employer will most likely counsel him not to. I don’t know if that is a requirement or not. Pretty good guess that the employers will oppose any such stipulation. You know, the “job creators”.
Miss this part? Didn’t mention, so I was kinda curious.
I didn’t “miss this part”. That was irrelevant to my post or to the post to which I was responding. I pointed out that 48% object to the executive order. Did you miss that part?
I’m interested to see how those polling numbers change after the President’s speech. He made some very clear points about what the limitations are going to be, and what his limitations as executive are going to be. I would be shocked if that didn’t allay a lot of voters’ concerns about the EO.
The standard plaintive cry. “If only those stupid sheeple knew the facts, they would support us”.
Connection between your post and the one you quoted: zero.
Support what? A more sensible and compassionate approach to the problem? They already do, as your cite shows. As far as doing it by executive action, they are right, it should not have been necessary. Who’s fault is that?
Obama made his move, now Congress will act? Good.
The 48% oppose the “executive action”. They don’t say “it should not have been necessary”. They oppose it. Do you know the difference?
Wow. I’m not seeing anything plaintive in my post, nor indeed anything implying that voters are stupid or “sheeple.” I think you’re reading something into my words that I very much did not intend.
What, specifically, did I say to warrant your response?
It either matters, or it doesn’t. Does it?
Kinda like the number of people who oppose the ACA, without noting the number of people who oppose it because they want more “socialized medicine” rather than less. Factually correct without being needlessly informative.
But Terr, you don’t understand - once Obama explains why he lied and broke his promises, his policies will become popular. After all, isn’t that how it worked with Obamacare - the minute Obama communicated clearly about his lies and broken promises, the program became almost universally beloved and the Democrats really cleaned up in the midterms!
Same here, no doubt. He will give a speech detailing how [list=a][li]he was lying when he said it would be inappropriate and illegal for him to do what he’s doing, OR [/li][li]admitting that it is still illegal and inappropriate, but necessary. Because the Dems lost the mid-terms.[/list][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Anyone in a status of “deferred deportation” can apply for a work permit under laws passed by congress.
Can the president legally say “There are 11 million illegal immigrants but my budget is only sufficient to deport about 400K per year. I’m going to defer deportation for three years for those with a family member with legal status and focus on those without a family tie and/or those with criminal records”? The Obama administration thinks they can make that prioritization decision.
The stats I see are 55%-60% of Americans favor immigration reform/amnesty/whatever as long as it includes a plan that prevents future illegal immigration. Since Obama’s plan has nothing in place to prevent illegal crossings, I wonder how many of those 48% would favor the plan IF it involve stemming the flow so that this will not be necessary in the future.
Bzzzzt.
That’s a great example of what I was trying to get at. So the President said this:
Obviously this will not prevent illegal border crossings, but AFAIK the President has always supported–or at least accepted–increased border enforcement as a condition for immigration reform. Given that he says his EO will indeed include at least additional funding for border enforcement, I would absolutely expect the polling numbers to change.
OK I missed that. Like I said, the websites I was looking at focused on the work status thingy.
To follow up, what is Obama’s plan for border control? More patrols? Drones? Piranha’s in the American Canal? Because what I have seen from Obama* has been:
- We will develop a comprehensive plan to do __________ .
- Profit.
- In the spirit of non-partisanship, this was also Bush’s plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq/Pakistan.
Can you cite the statute?
Take a look at the top of page 4 of the instructions for the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. It provides the section of law under which people granted deferred action can apply for work authorization.
Looked at the top of page 4. Don’t see anything like that. Can you post which section of which law applies?