I suppose not and the note regarding Obama’s policies is inconsistent with the facts. From Gigo’s link:
[QUOTE=Sahil Kapur of TPM]
The second bill ends the president’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for the roughly 550,000 who have benefited and prohibits the U.S. from granting work permits to anyone in the country illegally.
[/QUOTE]
The President is applying prosecutorial discretion to deport those in the country who have broken the law: he has in fact deported immigrants at a substantially higher rate than GW Bush did, and indeed the stock of illegal immigrants has declined (though that has much to do with the Great Recession). But Dreamers are passed over in preference to other candidates.
The Republican caucus chose to pass a bill that would over-ride the President’s plan. That is their right: it is their right to deport faithful members of the US military who speak English as a first language and have served this great nation with honor. Never mind if these men have risked their lives for America: they must go because of the sins of their fathers. So I continue my defense of modern conservatism: in this instance their actions are legal and have given us insight into aspects of the human character and pre-Biblical morality.
Not that he’s not pretty bad at his job - but a lot of the Speaker’s power went away when earmarks went away. He just doesn’t have much leverage to keep his caucus in line.
Of course, that was true for Pelosi, also, and she managed to get stuff done.
That’s because Pelosi’s big-shot soft money still agrees with most the Democratic platform. Too much of Boehner’s has gone either bat-shit insane or fuck-you-I want-more crazy.*
“Your Honor, the prosecution would like to submit the Koch Brothers into evidence, marked as Sane People’s Exhibit One.”
Correction: they can if they commit fraud. There is no such thing as a “faithful” or “law abiding” immigrant if they committed fraud to get a job or join the military.
It’s an inconsistent and poorly thought out policy. “If you succeed in your fraud, we’ll reward you. Fail, and no cookie for you.”
We should either admit illegals into the military and naturalize them, or we should forbid illegals to join and charge them with fraud if they attempt or succeed in doing so.
In any case, I’m a bit tired of the argument that “all they did was commit a civil violation by crossing our border.” In most cases, they committed felonies as part of getting by while present illegally. That part often goes unspoken by advocates, but it shouldn’t. It’s pure deception. If it’s not a crime to provide fraudulent identification to get work in the US, then Americans should also get a pass when they do it.
And it is inconsistent and nonsensical. If the recruiter catches the fraud, they can be charged with a felony and deported. If he doesn’t, they get to become citizens. I can think of no other case where the government rewards you if your crime is successful.
On tax fraud, it doesn’t matter how rich you are. It does of course matter if you work for the federal government. Then you might get a pass. And a cabinet post.
I like to think things keep getting better, that we wouldn’t actively pass a law pardoning fraud. I’m not saying throw all the illegals who committed fraud in jail, but a) they should pay whatever fines an American would have to pay for such crimes, plus back taxes if they didn’t pay them(along with interest and penalties), and b) should not be ever allowed to become citizens, only legal residents.
People whose ONLY offense was to cross the border illegally, sure, full amnesty, no fines, quick path to citizenship. That would apply to a lot of the DREAMers.
Did you just make this up? Is that a good way of fighting ignorance? When I’m trying to make a point here, I generally check a search engine or wikipedia first if it has an empirical component.
Are you objecting to his “illegal immigrants cannot join the military”? Because AFAIU that’s absolutely correct. An illegal immigrant can only join US military through fraud.
A blogger I read called policies like this “Survival of the fittest”. If you’re skillful or persistent enough to break our laws, you’ll eventually get what you want. If you’re stupid, or lazy, then you’ll get sent home. It’s Darwinism at its best. Perhaps that’s healthy for America long term. We only get the people who are driven and smart enough.
My objection was that his point was wholly unsourced. Thank you for the link. And thank you to John Mace and Fear Itself for providing further clarification.
It appears to me that the military isn’t especially happy about the difficulty of obtaining recruits among men and women whose parents took them into the country illegally when they were children. The military does not believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the sons. As for the recruits, it seems that they just love their country too much. Risking life and limb during wartime backs that proposition up.
I don’t think that those who serve honorably in the military - even fighting pointless wars initiated by craven Republican politicians - should be deported because of the sins of the fathers. But I’m not attacking modern conservatism: I’m drawing a contrast between post enlightenment Judea-Christian ethics -as conceived by the Democratic Party and the US military- and pre-Biblical morality. There’s nothing inherently illogical about pre-Biblical conceptualization: it’s fascinating.
John Mace: Here’s a link that goes through the evolution in Republican thinking on maximum deportation over the past 2 months and past year. It’s not the greatest treatment admittedly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/27/the-gop-is-now-officially-the-party-of-get-the-hell-out/
MfM: Just to be clear, I’m not in favor of the Republican’s policy. But I find it odd that you chastise them for wanting to deport people whom Obama is actually deporting right now. The article Fear Itself linked to is from 2011-- Obama well into his first term. Sure, Obama did some good by singling out one cohort to grant temporary “amnesty” to, but we’re talking about difference of degree, not of kind.