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.
And I have to admit I’ve never seen someone try to argue that immigration law was somehow a part of the constitution. It’s wrong, but at least it’s novel and shows that the person bringing it up is actually thinking.
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.
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?”
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.
Yup, that’s a political winner in Colorado. I really hope he makes exactly the speech you propose.
He should absolutely put non-enforcement of capital gains taxes on his platform too. Because declaring that you’ll tell the IRS that people like, oh, yourself, who make tens of millions only from capital gains should pay no taxes is political brilliance. Especially when running against someone proposing the Buffett rule.
Unfortunately, rather than political geniuses like you two, Romney has already said he won’t overturn this position if he wins. Still a political win for Obama, but not as big as if he could have goaded the GOP into taking positions like you two.
I disagree with Obama/Napolitano’s decree because, even though it repeatedly states that it isn’t a fast-track, work-around, end-run around immigration law, it absolutely is simply because of the fact that, the longer someone has established residency in the US, the greater their chances will be to attain citizenship -and- it now allows illegal aliens to compete for jobs that were previously only available to citizens.
OK, that said, I would have supported the Dream Act except for the fact that, once citizenship was obtained via that act, the new citizens would then be able to sponsor the people that brought them here–the ones that broke the law in the first place.
Now had congress written the law as to preclude, say, new citizens naturalized under the Dream Act from sponsoring anyone (and that somehow wasn’t deemed in violation of the 14th Amendment), then I could have supported it.
I’m not as hardline as magellan01 as to say “Tough bounce. Sucks to be you,” to little kids that arrived in their parent’s arms. In fact, I rather agree with Qin Shi Huangdi when he said, upthread,
At least I agree with the “getting the ball rolling part.”
But, I think the second part needs to happen first. As stated over and over again, the sheer number of illegal aliens is swamping the US’s ability to deal with them all. And, because of those numbers, it’s extremely difficult to deport those that should be deported (use your own criteria as to who those people are). If the intent is to allow illegal aliens to stay here because we simply don’t have the resources to do anything about it, let’s be honest about it and say, “OK, you’re here. But you’re here illegally. You know that. By remaining here, you are agreeing to assign yourself to a a class of people that is required to contribute just as much to the economy as you can while knowing full well that you are not eligible for the benefits that a US citizen is eligible to receive unless and until you become a full citizen, and we’re making the requirements to becoming a citizen much more stringent. You also agree that a US citizen will be given greater priority in hiring than you. Your choice. And, we’re not letting any more in.”
You see, I have a problem with those who say, “There are just too many of them! We can’t ship 'em all back, so let’s do nothing!” Something needs to be done. Congress needs to do something.
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.
Would you have preferred Texas, or, say, Alabama? From what I’ve read and heard, a majority of Coloradans support an anti-immigration law similar to the one passed in Arizona.
And, you know what? I really would like to see someone give that speech. The aftermath would be very interesting.
This Center for American Progress study from 2010 (*big PDF) concluded that identifying, processing, and deporting 8.6 million undocumented immigrants would cost approximately $285 billion over five years. This is in addition to any budget for ongoing enforcement and border protection during that time.
A separate study by UCLA concluded that deporting all undocumented immigrants would also reduce the GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years. Granting work visas to those same immigrants would result in a gain to the GDP by $1.5 trillion. So there is a $4 trillion difference between the two approaches if we’re talking pure economics and disregarding any other issues of human rights, breaking up families, etc. Whatever numbers you come up with for alleged savings to the economy by deporting all undocumented immigrants subtract $4.2 trillion and then round up. It will be a negative number and the country will be in a depression, wages would fall, jobs would be lost overall and chaos would ensue.
One study by the national dairy industry alone concluded that a loss of just half of immigrant dairy workers would lower dairy farm sales by $6.7 billion and reduce total economic output by $11.2 billion. Removing all immigrant dairy workers would cost 133,000 US jobs, affecting both immigrant and native-born workers.
Another study from USC concluded that legalizing California’s undocumented Latino immigrants would boost California’s economy overall. They would have earned $29.6 billion in 2009 if they had been legal - over $2 billion more than they actually earned. That growth would have spurred direct consumer spending in the state by $1.75 billion which would have a ripple effect through the state economy generating an additional $1.5 billion in spending, creating over 25,000 additional jobs, $310 million in additional state income tax and $1.4 billion in additional federal income tax.
I’d be interested in seeing the statute where the US government has codified exploitation of people living in this country, illegal or not. If you don’t think knowingly benefiting from the work of illegal aliens while denying them the same benefits as citizens is exploitation, just say so. But don’t pretend my comment about what is “American” was referring to any immigration laws.
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.
Rincon was a reference to the Rincon-Jimenez case I cited on the previous page to your post. I don’t know who Rincon and Dean might be.
In short, 8 USC § 1326 makes it a crime to be in the US after entering illegally after previously being deported. Conversely, § 1325, which governs illegal entry (and thus illegal presence) without previously being deported, does not make the presence a crime.
Congress explicitly made one a crime, but did not explicitly make the other a crime. Since the two sections are part of the same enactment (the Immigration and Naturalization Act) they are read together and the court cannot imply a crime or criminal penalty into § 1325.
You’re reading the federal statutes backwards, by the way. Somewhat oddly, federal statutes are identified by title, then section. So 8 USC 1325 is “Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Code”. Sub-sections are identified by letter (and sub-subsections by number, if necessary). Sections 1325 and 1326 govern two different types of illegal entry; Congress saw fit to distinguish between people who are deported and then re-enter, and people entering for the first time (or at least without being deported beforehand).
[QUOTE=Terr]
It will be fun to see what all those defending this Obama’s power grab today will say when President Romney (or whoever) decides to tell the IRS not to prosecute anyone who doesn’t declare his capital gains on their taxes, instead of working to pass a law to lower capital gains tax to 0.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about the others, but I’ll probably just point out that tax evasion is a crime, and illegal immigration by a minor is not. Of course, you’d know that if you read the five pages of substantive discussion that preceded your post.
Missed the edit window. Don’t worry about the specific intent stuff. The point of that case is just that it states a general rule of law: if the legislature includes certain language in one section of an enactment, but does not include it in a similar section, courts assume that they intended to leave it out.
No problem. The flip side of the coin is that Congress is free to rewrite the law to include whatever was missing, if it thinks the relevant court has misread it. The general view is that people shouldn’t get in trouble for crimes if the legislature didn’t properly spell out that they were crimes.
The politics of this issue seem to be a bit unpredictable. The Washington Post just ran an article about the heightened competition for jobs and college placement that may follow from this order. For a newspaper that has generally been very friendly to the Administration and solidly in favor of expanded legal immigration to immediately run an article highlighting doubts about the President’s policy suggests that they are hearing or expecting some significant opposition.
On the other hand, the NYT ran an article about how conservative evangelical groups, including Focus On The Family, are moving to support expanded legal immigration, in part because Latino churchgoers are a fast-growing segment of their congregations.
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.
I’m just going to post one more thing for now. This is a YouTube video of President Obama saying that he can’t just stop deportations by executive order.