Especially considering all Obama has done to beef up border-enforcement and deportation, and his recent proposal to add more immigration judges.
Obama factors in by unilaterally enacting the DREAM Act, creating rumors among parents who haven’t come here yet that their children would be amnestied too.
Obama implemented DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Many people in Central America took that to mean if children got here they’d be allowed to stay here and once they turn 18 they could start getting their families immigrated. Media in Central American countries started advertising about DACA and told the populace now is the time to send the children here to the US.
Why do you think there has been 50,000+ children showing up just since October?
Yes it was implemented in 2012 but it took time for the word to spread that it was ok to send the children.
IT’s kinda like the Danish cartoons, it can take awhile for news to spread in the Third World. But once the rumors get started, you can get some crazy results.
DACA does not apply to any new arrivals:
If anyone decided to come here as a result of DACA, it was because they were misinformed, not because Obama or DACA was misguided.
True. They misunderstood the policy. Still, floods of immigrants has been a predicted outcome of immigration reform for some time. Most Third Worlders aren’t going to get the nuance of what’s being done. If we legalize our illegal population, then a whole bunch of people are going to come here thinking they will be legalized too.
It’s no one’s fault, but it is a predictable outcome and it should not come as a surprise as it seems to have for the President. I’ve heard he listens to conservatives but apparently not.
Is this an argument against immigration reform of any kind, for fear Third Worlders will misunderstand?
*Can *and *should *are two very different things.
The United States probably *could * technically afford to take in millions more of illegal immigrants. That doesn’t mean it necessarily should.
By analogy, the USA probably technically *could *afford to give $300 billion in free aid every year to African countries. That doesn’t mean it necessarily should, even though the entire African continent arguably could really use that money.
No. We should have immigration reform, but, one of the prices of immigration reform is going to be a refugee crisis that will probably dwarf this one. Maybe it won’t happen, but it’s certainly a possibility.
That’s why the only way I’ll support immigration reform this time around is if it’s a permanent solution. Not something where we’ll have to revisit this in 20 years and figure out what to do with 10 million more illegals. We fix our immigration system, then we do amnesty. In that order.
Do you think Republicans are better at anticipating consequences than Democrats? Is a permanent solution even conceivable?
If that means sealing the border so no one can come here illegally, I think you are constructing a poison pill that will push any path to citizenship off into the far distant future, if at all. Can’t see how that is a winning policy for Republican candidates, but, by all means, campaign on that.
That would be constitutionally impossible. Congress can do nothing a later Congress cannot change.
The best solution is to just let anyone who wants to come here come here, except for felons and people with infectious diseases. Also, they would be required to support themselves. No taxpayer benefits until they’ve been paying into the system for awhile. Our system is more than capable of keeping most of the felons and diseased out.
However, if we want reduced immigration, we’re capable of that too. It’s said that we can’t deport 12 million people, but Clinton did it over his eight years. governments can also make it very unpleasant for illegals to live here. Many protest these methods, but they are very effective.
What we can’t have is a situation where we have laws we don’t enforce and just live with an illegal population for a couple decades until we amnesty them and start over.
What it should mean is giving the voters what they want: a path to citizenship for those currently here who have been working and are law abiding, plus doing a much better job on the border and internal enforcement. But since promises to improve enforcement have been mostly unkept, that has to be done first.
BTW, the Senate bill already pushes citizenship off into the distant future. The problem is that legalization happens the second the bill is signed, and the citizenship portion won’t be delayed even if ten years from now there is no improvement in enforcement.
And the self-appointed arbiters of the success of enforcement, much like those who can never admit Obamacare is a success, will make sure a path to citizenship never comes to pass.
And those who think deportation is “un-American” will resist and use lawsuits to ensure the enforcement never happens. And so we are at an impasse. Better to keep the law as it is.
No, the impasse means the law will be kept as it is. It does not mean that is better than changing it.
Bullshit.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t understand why someone who came here illegally should be given any shot to legal citizenship. They’ve already shown they don’t give a rip about our laws, what makes you think they’ll become law abiding citizens?
What’s the alternative?
We’ve already discussed this. No services for illegals. Hammer employers who hire illegals. Seal the border. Microchip and boot out those that came here illegally and don’t leave voluntarily..
This problem could be taken care of in 36 months or less. There would be bitching, protests, and gnashing of teeth. But once it was done and a normal immigration policy was established, everyone would see it was for the best.
The problem is people who don’t think the illegals have done anything wrong. They have.