# Obama: DHS will issue work visas to young undocumented immigrants **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310 "2012-06-16T02:07:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/221 "2012-06-17T18:03:57Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > That’s wrong. Kids can be here for 18, 19, 20 years and still be screwed. When you overstay your visa, you trigger a ban from re-entry. There are very few ways out of it. “How long you’ve been here” has nothing to do with it. I guess if you say something like, “The more chances they have to meet someone who would marry them and sponsor their citizenship” or something, that works. Kind of. OK—one more thing. I think everything you said supports my point, since I said nothing about “re-entry.” And, establishing a kind of residence, maintaining a job, having a family–all these can occur which would have a bearing on a determination of eligibility. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/222 "2012-06-17T18:05:43Z")
He appears to be talking about deportation, generally, and not deportation with respect to specific factors. Note that at 2’00" or so he points out that “it doesn’t mean we can’t make decisions, for example to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity.” ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/223 "2012-06-17T18:09:23Z")
The furor over this is really incomprehensible when you stop and think about it. Are the plan’s opponents of the opinion that we shouldn’t be focusing our efforts on deporting criminals? ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/224 "2012-06-17T18:21:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He appears to be talking about deportation, generally, and not deportation with respect to specific factors. Note that at 2’00" or so he points out that “it doesn’t mean we can’t make decisions, for example to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity.” (It keeps pulling me back…) Well, yeah. But that’s what this thread is about–removing the possibility of deportation of illegal aliens. He also states, “There are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that, for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates, (it) would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” I feel that this is the salient point. You can read the transcript of the entire town hall meeting [herel](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-univision-town-hal) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/225 "2012-06-17T18:29:06Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > [Operation Wetback](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback). Some U.S. citizens were deported illegally; though I don’t know the numbers, and many of them were probably children born in the U.S. You do realize that that was over 50 years ago, right? Also, can you point to any politician or recognized republican leader advocating any action at all similar to Operation Wetback? ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/226 "2012-06-17T18:42:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, can you point to any politician or recognized republican leader advocating any action at all similar to Operation Wetback? Well, certainly anyone who argues that the president is wrong to target criminals for deportation rather than just deporting every undocumented immigrant is implicitly calling for such an operation. They might not want to admit it or they might even be dumb enough that they don’t understand what would be required to accomplish their goals, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is the sort of thing they are advocating. Heck, the citizenship checks during traffic stops doesn’t sound all that distant from what a recently-passed law in Arizona calls for. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/227 "2012-06-17T18:56:04Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because, for rational people, it tells you that these arguments have already been refuted, and thus you can know not to bring them up. I’ll let people make their own conclusions of why you, after the post was given, went ahead and brought up the subject. Especially since you used anecdotes to try to argue against it. Well, rational people understand that there are more than one side to an argument and that positions have been supplied on both sides. Rational people who have been in immigration discussions understand that each of the topics mentioned have been debate in great detail and that a synopses like the one offered—specifically the one offered—gives just an overly simplistic, hyper-partisan explanation. The type fit for 4th-graders or people who want to be able to copy and paste oh-so-damaging information to people on their email lists. These things exist on both sides and they are beyond dumb. Beyond dumb because of how easily naive people swallow them as fact, hook, line and sinker. I get emails like that from the other side and got into a big fight with a friend of a friend because I told them it was 1) dumb and 2) unhelpful. In this particular case, it was also like a fleet of dumptrucks unloading tons of straw. Not only was much of that not in discussion, even most of those topics that were being discussed had no one in the debate holding the positions that were _apparently_ eviscerated. > [@BigT](#): > > Plus, the president has explicit rights to pardon any criminal. The exectutive branch has always had discretion when choosing to enforce laws, and this extends all the way up to the office of the president. Notice that you used the word “criminal”, singular. Which makes you correct. The President absolutely has the right to use his discretion to pardon an individual. He doesn’t have the authority to circumvent congress and effectively make constitutionally passed laws null and void. But I LOVE LOVE LOVE how this reality version of Obama contrasts with the idealized version who campaigned on a lighter Executive Touch and, hehe, more transparency. And still people who claimed to love his message defend stuff that goes beyond Bush. Look also at how his administration is handling the national security leaks coming out of them. When Abramoff was the target, Obama thought an Independent Council was necessary to ensure public confidence. And THAT was not even a national security issue. Now? Well, Holder appointed to guys to look at it who will be reporting to him! But that’s fodder for another thread. I think there is good news about how Obama is handling the immigration issue (and the leaks). And that s that the people who will be paying most attention to these types of things are the Independent voters. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/228 "2012-06-17T19:00:45Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Translation: We are sorry that you found yourself here in the US through no fault of your own, but we will knowingly and willingly exploit you to the fullest extent possible. > > Sorry, but that just doesn’t sound very American to me. If the people affected agree, they can always leave, no? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/229 "2012-06-17T19:10:54Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Well, certainly anyone who argues that the president is wrong to target criminals for deportation rather than just deporting every undocumented immigrant is implicitly calling for such an operation. They might not want to admit it or they might even be dumb enough that they don’t understand what would be required to accomplish their goals, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is the sort of thing they are advocating. Nope. Cite one Republican leader who advocates deporting all illegals that are here. Just one. Go ahead. As far as your other point, there’s a world of difference between focusing efforts on criminals and deeming that a large swath of the illegal alien population is no longer here illegally. The former is within his powers, the latter I don’t think is. It’s also grossly unhelpful if one is interested in putting Americans back to work or curtailing further illegal immigration. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/230 "2012-06-17T19:41:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. Cite one Republican leader who advocates deporting all illegals that are here. Just one. Go ahead. I didn’t say they said it explicitly. Obviously you don’t read well. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/231 "2012-06-17T20:24:35Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > I can’t. At least not for illegal aliens. But what follows is in regard to _legal immigration as a whole._ > > Bear with me. > > These people are eligible for any and all types of government expenditures. Please note, though, that an argument that states, “Since illegal immigrants don’t benefit from those expenditures, therefore they cost much less,” then that becomes an argument _against allowing for any immigration whatsoever_ because a legal immigrant _would_ result in a net cost. I would also call into question any statement that says that illegal aliens provide a net positive gain to the economy with a preemptive “Cite?” > > [This table](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=284) is taken from a book called [The New Americans-Demographics and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997)](http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5779). Any questions as to the veracity and repute of this publication I would direct [here.](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=R2) > > The table states that, in 1996, the net negative annual fiscal impact imposed by immigrant-headed households on native residents in California was $20.16 billion. > > This study does take into account the aggregate contributions _to,_ as well as the debits _from_, California’s economy. > > Now, it has been 15 years since publication of this book. Much has changed in that time. I’ll leave it to you to decide if you think those changes have had a positive or negative effect on California’s balance sheet. > > If anyone can find any reference that specifically addresses the costs of illegal aliens, I’d be very interested in seeing it. > > And, since **BrainGlutton** ’s demand for proof was directed at **Magiver** initially, I’m now going to step aside and let him (Magiver), if he wishes to, provide whatever proof he can. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Americans:_Economic,_Demographic,_and_Fiscal_Effects_of_Immigration) summarizes that book: > [@](#): > > The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration is a 1997 study on the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration to the United States by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences.[1] The NRC report found that **although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, were a net cost in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, overall immigration was a net economic gain due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital.** The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for some low skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus are performing services that otherwise would not exist, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.[2] U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 indicated that the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States grew to nearly 1.6 million in 2002. **Those Hispanic-owned businesses generated about $222 billion in revenue.[3]** The report notes that the burden of poor immigrants is not born equally among states, and is most heavy in California.[4] > > On the poor end of the spectrum, the “New Americans” report found that **low-skill low wage immigration does not, on aggregate, lower the wages of most domestic workers.** The report also addresses the question of if immigration affects black Americans differently from the population in general: “While some have suspected that blacks suffer disproportionately from the inflow of low-skilled immigrants, none of the available evidence suggests that they have been particularly hard-hit on a national level. Some have lost their jobs, especially in places where immigrants are concentrated. But the majority of blacks live elsewhere, and their economic fortunes are tied to other factors.”[5] ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/232 "2012-06-17T20:29:12Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Translation: We are sorry that you found yourself here in the US through no fault of your own, but we will knowingly and willingly exploit you to the fullest extent possible. > > Sorry, but that just doesn’t sound very American to me. I need to address this once more. You do understand, right, that the action by Obama/Napolitano, de facto, creates exactly this? The president himself said, “This is not a path to citizenship.” That means, if you’re to believe him, that these people will remain as an underclass forever–never reaping the benefits of citizenship while still being required to pay for it–which is exactly the thing that you object to. (Now, if you’ll allow me a minute to paint a large target on myself…OK, done.) The idea of “restitution” has been floated in other places. That’s intriguing. Congress could pass a law that allows for the award of citizenship after meeting all of the necessary qualification -plus- restitution (of an amount to be determined by congress later) over a period of time (to be determined by congress later) for illegal aliens. I believe this to be a better option. It would eventually allow for illegals to become citizens, and it would, basically, pre-pay their costs. By passing a law, there wouldn’t be the risk of a future president negating it via executive order or DHS Secretary memo. I don’t ascribe to the argument, “But they’re already here! They’re already paying!” They may be, but they’re never going to become citizens under the current directives. Under a restitution program, those that _really_ want to become citizens could. Those that want to remain in Obama/Napolitano’s underclass could as well. Or should this be the topic of a different thread in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/233 "2012-06-17T20:29:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. Cite one Republican leader who advocates deporting all illegals that are here. Just one. Go ahead. I know a lot of Republican **voters** do. Republican **officials** are beholden to business interests that depend on cheap immigrant labor. We saw this division within the party manifested when [W tried to push through immigration reform in 2006-2007.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611) (It failed.) ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/234 "2012-06-17T20:30:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Americans:_Economic,_Demographic,_and_Fiscal_Effects_of_Immigration) summarizes that book: Is this specifically addressing California as was your original request for proof? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/235 "2012-06-17T20:35:09Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > Or, he could address the graduating class of the University of Colorado and say something like, “Congratulations graduates. Good luck getting a job now that there are tens of thousands of formerly ineligible illegal aliens that are now qualified to take the positions that you just spent four years studying and paying for.” Only those immigrants who also spent four years studying and paying. And it’s no surprise to American college graduates nowadays that they have to compete with a **lot** of other college graduates; a few thousand more ain’t a drop in the bucket. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/236 "2012-06-17T20:43:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I know a lot of Republican **voters** do. Republican **officials** are beholden to business interests that depend on cheap immigrant labor. We saw this division within the party manifested when [W tried to push through immigration reform in 2006-2007.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611) (It failed.) I didn’t see anything in that Wiki cite that mentioned either Republicans or Democrats. But, other than Arlen Specter, all of the co-sponsors of the bill except Kennedy were Republicans. Also, "In 2006 the Democratic Party won a majority of the state governorships[6] and the U.S. House and Senate seats each for the first time since 1994, an election-year commonly known as the “Republican Revolution.” For the first time in the history of the United States, no Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat. " (from Wikipedia) ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/237 "2012-06-17T21:03:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Only those immigrants who also spent four years studying and paying. And it’s no surprise to American college graduates nowadays that they have to compete with a **lot** of other college graduates; a few thousand more ain’t a drop in the bucket. Like I said earlier…observing the aftermath and subsequent carnage would be fascinating. I can envision where he called out students by name… "Elizabeth Murray, are you here? Please stand up. Oh, there she is. Congratulations! By the way, the job you wanted in engineering with Boeing was just filled this week by Raoul Morales, an illegal alien. And Peter Ludwigson, please stand up. Your job in systems analysis was taken by Eliazar Castillo, also an illegal alien. You can both sit down now. But let me tell this graduating class this: Of the 847 of you here today, 51 of you will not be able to get a job because those jobs were either recently filled by illegal aliens, or there was an illegal alien working in those positions who is now allowed to remain here regardless of his immigration status." Oh, you bet I made those numbers up, but you have to remember that the best estimates I’ve seen is that there are 800,000 people that Obama’s edict applies to. If only 10 percent of those attend college, that’s 80,000. There are approximately 2,400 public and private4-year colleges in the US. That comes out to about 33 illegal aliens per college, but I’m allowing for some colleges being more of a draw to illegal aliens than others, and those were the ones I made up this story about. In any event, I feel it’s _wrong_ if even one US citizen loses out on a job to that position being taken by an illegal alien. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/238 "2012-06-17T21:12:07Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > You called it exploitation. I didn’t. Put simply, though, it’s codified into laws that say things like “you can’t vote unless you’re a citizen,” “you can’t receive Social Security unless you’re a citizen,” “you can’t hold elected office unless you’re a citizen”—things like that. Call it exploitation if you will, but it’s the law. Not that you could have known, since I wasn’t specific, but I’m not calling your examples and other similar laws exploitation. Even _legal_ aliens cannot vote or hold elective office, but those are things that one chooses to do or seek. I’m talking about the kinds of things some want to deny immigrant workers while being fully happy to benefit from their hard, honest work. Things like health care and aid for education or even the right for their children to attend a public school. Now, if someone is here illegally and doesn’t work and contribute, I have little sympathy for them. But for the others, I think it’s wrong to benefit from their efforts while at the same time trying to deny them all but the most basic things necessary for survival. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/239 "2012-06-17T21:14:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If the people affected agree, they can always leave, no? Absolutely. But that’s beside my point. See my post #238. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/240 "2012-06-17T21:15:50Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > In any event, I feel it’s _wrong_ if even one US citizen loses out on a job to that position being taken by an illegal alien. Okay, I can see how you might hold this position. What, then, do you want to do with the illegal aliens who grew up in the USA and were educated in US public schools? Presume, for the sake of argument, that crossing the border or overstaying a visa is a criminal matter. The child who committed those crimes is not legally responsible for them as an adult. So you have an adult who was raised in America, who has committed no crime other than being the child of criminals (again for the sake of example). And you think it’s a good idea to deport them? If nothing else, it’s a bad PR move, as you’ll have thousands upon thousands of young men and women scattered throughout the world with a decent education and a grudge against America. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310.md?page=13)