# 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:** 6
**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 16, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/101 "2012-06-16T19:31:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I picked border states because of the obvious. Look at the budget problems California is in. California has budget problems because California has artificially held down market-based increases in property tax assessments. If you can find a more reputable cite than FAIR, I’ll be happy to look at it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/102 "2012-06-16T19:32:52Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Yeah, what a [bummer](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/californias-illegal-immigrant-shortage). I cited the cost up thread of over 10 billion in California. They’re looking at over a [10 billion dollar budget defici](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/cali-m01.shtml)t. What happens to a $10 billion dollar deficit when you take out $10 billion dollars in costs for illegal aliens? ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/103 "2012-06-16T19:34:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The court was applying the federal statute and controlling SCOTUS precedent. It’s not “perverted, twisted legal reasoning”; it’s the law. Do I really need to spell out the importance of specificity in criminal statutes? Do you want your state to be able to put you in jail for forgetting to, say, renew your vehicle registration? That’s the only precedent I could find that specifically states that being an illegal immigrant, in and of itself, isn’t a crime. And, you know full well that that doesn’t even remotely equate to renewing a registration. What _does_ equate is if you continued to drive even after you knew that you had failed to renew your license plates. “But I’ve had them for sooooooo long.” > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why you’re referencing that case in the first place. Immigration law is the province of the federal government, not the states. A state court ruling on an immigration issue is not controlling precedent. However, that decision was in accordance with the federal law. Okay. I’m not a lawyer. Show me, specifically, where it explicitly states in federal law that being in the United States illegally is not a crime in and of itself. > [@](#): > > Executive privilege doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does, for the record. Yeah, that wasn’t a proper phrasing on my part. I know what executive privilege is. It doesn’t apply to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/104 "2012-06-16T19:37:53Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Clearly you and I have different interpretations of the word ‘welfare’. I didn’t say “welfare.” You did. What are some other “social services?” ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/105 "2012-06-16T19:44:10Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > That’s the only precedent I could find that specifically states that being an illegal immigrant, in and of itself, isn’t a crime. And, you know full well that that doesn’t even remotely equate to renewing a registration. What _does_ equate is if you continued to drive even after you knew that you had failed to renew your license plates. “But I’ve had them for sooooooo long.” > > Okay. I’m not a lawyer. Show me, specifically, where it explicitly states in federal law that being in the United States illegally is not a crime in and of itself. Fair enough. The Kansas court you referenced cited the law in their own decision: > [@](#): > > Comparison of s 1325 with its companion statute, s 1326, adds strength to the suggestion that s 1325 is consummated at the time of entering the United States. Section 1326 makes it a felony forAny alien who (1) has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported, and thereafter (2) enters, attempts to enter, Or is at any time found in, the United States . . . .(emphasis supplied). This language explicitly makes it a crime for an alien to remain in this country after an illegal reentry. The statute had been construed, moreover, as describing a continuing offense that tolls the statute of limitations as long as such an alien is present in the United States. See United States v. Bruno, 328 F.Supp. 815, 825 (D.C.Mo.1971); United States v. Alvarado-Soto, 120 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.C.Cal.1954).No such explicit language exists in s 1325. Absent language such as that found in 8 U.S.C. s 1326, we decline to make the offense described in s 1325(2) one that continues as long as the alien remains in this country. Our construction does not undermine the force of the immigration laws. Appellant is still subject to deportation on these charges, See 8 U.S.C. s 1251(a)(2). We find, however, no reason to interpret this criminal statute in a manner that avoids commencing the running period of the statute of limitations as of the time of the illegal entry. Accordingly, we hold that the five-year statute of limitations required by 18 U.S.C. s 3282 is applicable to this offense and bars the criminal prosecution. > > United States v. Rincon-Jimenez, 595 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 1979) If you want a federal _statute_ that says, “being in the United States illegally is not a crime in and of itself”, I can’t give you that. Criminal statutes, as a general rule, don’t tell you what you can’t do. They tell you what you _can_ do. ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/106 "2012-06-16T19:46:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I cited the cost up thread of over 10 billion in California. They’re looking at over a [10 billion dollar budget defici](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/cali-m01.shtml)t. > > What happens to a $10 billion dollar deficit when you take out $10 billion dollars in costs for illegal aliens? So you’re now claiming that California loses a net $10 billion a year due to illegal immigrants – _$10 billion every year lost, even after the taxes those immigrants pay_. Sorry, fella. That one doesn’t pass the sniff test. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/107 "2012-06-16T19:46:24Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Yeah, what a [bummer](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/californias-illegal-immigrant-shortage). Maybe this will help. From Post 75: [QUOTE=magellan01] It wasn’t worth their time for those wages. There are plenty of difficult jobs that people won’t do for minimum wage or so. As I’ve pointed out before on these boards. Back in the 60s or 70s, NYC had a dearth of garbage collectors. It was a tough and unpleasant job. When they raised they recruited with substantially raised wages, all the jobs were filled. With a waiting list to boot. Do you really think that if those agricultural jobs in Alabama paid $100 per hour there wouldn’t be a waiting list. Noaturally, I’m not arguing for raising the wages to that, just making the point that whether people will do a job is dependent on two factors: how difficult/unpleasant/dangerous the job is and what it pays. The problem is that due to a steady stream of illegal workers, people have come to accept that the amount that they we’re wiling to accept to to a job is THE fair wage. But that’s use fantasy. It may be fair. It may not be fair. The only way to know is to force the employers to enter into a relationship where the fair wage will be set by the market, without illegals artificially surprising the wage. [/QUOTE] ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/108 "2012-06-16T19:49:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Criminal statutes, as a general rule, don’t tell you what you can’t do. They tell you what you _can_ do. D’oh! That should be the other way around (that is, they tell you what you can’t do). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/109 "2012-06-16T19:50:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why not? The more benefits illegals get for themselves and their families the more you incentivize illegals to come here. Do you not agree with that statement? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/110 "2012-06-16T19:52:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They don’t get care for free, any more than any other broke person. They get emergency care without regard for their ability to pay, and just like any other broke person, they get billed for it. Sure, the hospital will almost certainly have to write off the bill, but I don’t see why it makes a difference to you _who_ is getting free care. The difference is that without the illegals here we (the hospitals) would have to cover the cost of X number of poor people. With the illegals here, that number is X + _n_. N should be zero or as close to it as possible. ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/111 "2012-06-16T19:54:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The more benefits illegals get for themselves and their families the more you incentivize illegals to come here. Do you not agree with that statement? I don’t necessarily disagree with it, but they come here to work, not because they want to send their kids to UCSB. That’s not the only consideration, though; the simple fact is that even illegal immigrants are entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/112 "2012-06-16T19:54:29Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > I didn’t say “welfare.” You did. What are some other “social services?” I find the two to be synonymous. You said, \* See if you can come up with anything that might fall under the umbrella of “social services” that isn’t welfare. \* Anything falling under social services is welfare. So when you said that they used our social services, I assumed you meant welfare that you apply for. It doesn’t matter. Kids aren’t illegally enjoying the benefits of a U.S. education. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/113 "2012-06-16T20:00:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t necessarily disagree with it, but they come here to work, not because they want to send their kids to UCSB. That’s not the only consideration, though; the simple fact is that even illegal immigrants are entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, yes. But they needn’t get that protection plus some extra goodies, like in-state tuition. We should be crafting policy to reduce illegal immigration, not encourage it. While I don’t doubt that work is a major draw for them coming here, don’t you think that the improved lives for their children is also a HUGE draw? Or are you of the mind that people about to be illegal immigrants don’t love their children as mush as others and don’t consider their welfare and education of paramount importance? That’s really not intended to be snark, though I see it can be read that way. I’d really like you to respond to it. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/114 "2012-06-16T20:14:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If you want a federal _statute_ that says, “being in the United States illegally is not a crime in and of itself”, I can’t give you that. Criminal statutes, as a general rule, don’t tell you what you can’t do. They tell you what you _can_ do. That’s what I want. Federal law. With regard to “the importance of specificity.” Hell, I’d even like to see where being an illegal immigrant is listed as a civil offense. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/115 "2012-06-16T20:18:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We should be crafting policy to reduce illegal immigration, not encourage it. That could be done but we refuse to because we depend on it. So the best idea is to help fix our immigration laws that make it easier for kids who turn 18 to participate in the process legally. I don’t know why you think sending an immigrant from the Philippines back to his home country after he becomes of age is in any way humane, especially if the child has no connections to his home country and couldn’t survive a lick there. I have kids from Juarez who came here when they were six or seven. I’d hide them myself before I let them get deported. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/116 "2012-06-16T20:23:01Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I find the two to be synonymous. You said, \* > See if you can come up with anything that might fall under the umbrella of “social services” that isn’t welfare.\* I don’t. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter. Kids aren’t illegally enjoying the benefits of a U.S. education. Granted. Plyler, etc. > [@](#): > > I have kids from Juarez who came here when they were six or seven. I’d hide them myself before I let them get deported. Oddly enough, that could result in you going to jail while they walked free. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/117 "2012-06-16T20:35:01Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > That could be done but we refuse to because we depend on it. So the best idea is to help fix our immigration laws that make it easier for kids who turn 18 to participate in the process legally. I don’t know why you think sending an immigrant from the Philippines back to his home country after he becomes of age is in any way humane, especially if the child has no connections to his home country and couldn’t survive a lick there. > > I have kids from Juarez who came here when they were six or seven. I’d hide them myself before I let them get deported. Those are problems of the parents’ making. There are people who go to jail and their kids have to go into orphanages and foster care. Do you take these kids into your home? If you’re the big-hearted type to do that, I commend you. But I’d point out that if it was for people coming here illegally you’d be able to devote your care to other kids that are already here who dream of being in a good foster care home or, dream of dreams, being adopted by some nice person such as yourself. And the fact is that the more we go out of our way to help their kids, innocent that may be, the more we encourage more of the same behavior. Do you deny that? ---
**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 16, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/118 "2012-06-16T20:44:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unfortunately, yes. But they needn’t get that protection plus some extra goodies, like in-state tuition. We should be crafting policy to reduce illegal immigration, not encourage it. > > While I don’t doubt that work is a major draw for them coming here, don’t you think that the improved lives for their children is also a HUGE draw? In-state tuition discounts aren’t an “extra goody”. What do you think the Equal Protection Clause does, exactly? I don’t think it’s a huge draw, necessarily, but I don’t know any illegal immigrants very well. > [@Rysdad](#): > > That’s what I want. Federal law. With regard to “the importance of specificity.” > > Hell, I’d even like to see where being an illegal immigrant is listed as a civil offense. You know that appellate decisions _are_ federal law, right? Since you ask, though: > [@](#): > > “[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). > > Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 573 (2009) That’s exactly what the Ninth Circuit did in the Rincon case cited above: noted that Congress had explicitly made violations of a different section of the same Act a crime, and not the section in question. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/119 "2012-06-16T20:47:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Those are problems of the parents’ making. There are people who go to jail and their kids have to go into orphanages and foster care. Do you take these kids into your home? If you’re the big-hearted type to do that, I commend you. Do you have stats on how often it happens? Because I’ve yet to see a student without papers who was in that situation. It’s only 200 kids or so that I’ve known, but still. And yes, I’d 100 per cent take in one of those kids and support their citizenship. (Per immigration law, you have to take them in very young and I only teach high school.) It’s almost impossible, though, since the parent would have to give up their rights. Wondering what you think about [these](http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/11/thousands_of_kids_lost_in_foster_homes_after_parents_deportation.html) situations, where kids are put in foster care because their parents were deported. What we’re doing is creating a class (or sustaining a class) of second-class citizens. I’d rather tell my students they have options to WORK and they should get good grades so they can graduate instead of sympathize with them when they turn to gangs or drop out of school because there’s no point. ---
**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 16, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310/120 "2012-06-16T21:06:24Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > But as someone who has been waiting in a very long line to do things the legal way to get my relatives through the immigration process it pisses me off that anyone is allowed to jump the line. Doesn’t matter to me that these are people who came to the States as kids. As long as USCIS is busy processing their applications they are not getting to my family’s applications. I can see how you would be upset, but is it not possible\* that “their” applications are being put on the bottom of the pile, while your family’s applications are still in the same part of the line as always? \*For all I know, what you say will happen could indeed be correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-dhs-will-issue-work-visas-to-young-undocumented-immigrants/625310.md?page=7)