And I would still object to it. It’s really got nothing to do with Obama or whomever is president.
Hmmm. Seems you must share the same reading affliction. And I didn’t ask you for a cite showing where they stated it “explicitly”. (Gee, this is fun.) Just provide a cite for a republican leader advocating the position, even obliquely. So I can see how much this is in the person’s head and how much of it is in your own.
I’ll wait.
I’m sure some voter might hold such an extreme position, but that’s really beside the point, isn’t it? There are a handful of people on the left, one of them on these boards, who advocate for the killing of our own troops. Does it make sense to argue against that as if it might become policy, or even a plank of the left?
Okay, no problem.
Firstly, SCOTUS has already decided that the children can attend school, and, though I’m loathe to try and infer anything from the crapload of stuff I’ve researched today, I believe that aid to education is supplied via a head count of students–not their immigration status. I’m not arguing that at all.
And, as I said somewhere previously, it’s not possible to try to deport every illegal alien–nor would I want to try. I can readily agree that some illegal aliens deserve to be deported much more than others. It would make sense, though, that there would be a concomitant fee to assist in staffing up and processing all of the new requests, as well as being applied to getting rid of the undesirable illegals.
It’s only fair that I re-state my position so that there can be no doubt as to where I stand: I believe that Obama’s edict is a very thinly veiled beg for votes (because he desperately needs them), that it unfairly places illegal aliens in a position to compete with US citizens for jobs, it’s a path to citizenship irrespective of his own comments (and, respectfully, Crazyhorses’s.), and that it’s an overreach of his authority–something he himself said that it would be, as did his Secretary of DHS.
I disagree. If illegals, or legal immigrants, don’t like whatever deal the\is country offers them, they can leave. That’s a fact. They’re not slaves.
[QUOTE=Fiddle Peghead]
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.
[/QUOTE]
See above. For the record I’m more then happy to forego whatever benefit they might provide for a secure border and immigrants who come here legally. Not to mention a policy that does Not encourage more illegal immigration.
Indeed, the devil is in the details.
I guess I’d propose restitution. They can become citizens if they can meet as-yet-unenumerated requirements decided by congress and signed into law by the president.
To do otherwise penalizes actual citizens.
ETA: And, yes, secure the goddamned border as well as broadcasting it far and wide that if an otherwise legal alien “forgets” to re-new his authorization to be here, the chances of him or her ever attaining full citizenship are next to zero so that we’re not having this same discussion 10 - 20 - 30 years from now.
So, to confirm, you are arguing that no Republican leader has spoken out against the president’s stated plans regarding how deportations are prioritized?
Okay.
ETA: All right, assuming that everyone who is up in arms about the president laying out his priorities in terms of which undocumented immigrants to deport wants them all deported is unfair. It could well be that some people object specifically to concentrating on deporting criminals, and would like undocumented immigrants who commit crimes to be allowed to stay in the country.
Regardless of what Obama says, how can this move not be the beginning of amnesty/path to citizenship?
I’ve read this several times, and I’ll readily admit that I’m lacking in comprehension here. I’d respectfully ask you to re-word that for my own dense-headed edification. (I think I understand the second sentence, but I’m having trouble with the first.)
That’s making a fine distinction with no real purpose that I can see. In most states, speeding is a civil infraction as well. Would it be okay in your view for a state governor to tell the police not to enforce speeding laws under the guise that it isn’t really a crime, just a civil infraction?
Whether Congress assigned criminal penalties to that section, the intent was still clear that people found here in violation of immigration laws were to be deported. And in particular cases, the executive will make a discretionary decision not to prosecute this case or that for particular reasons, but to wholesale decide that a class of things are simply not going to be enforced is taking legislative power that belongs to Congress.
Italics emphasis mine.
The number 800,000 has been thrown around a lot to estimate how many would quailfy for work visas under this decision. From what I have read that number is based upon how many would have qualified under the DREAM Act.
However the DREAM Act required progress towards a college degree (or military service). Obama’s proposal only requires high school graduation - a much lower bar. That means 2-3 million may qualify.
Congress, of course, has not passed the DREAM Act. So can we surmise that by their inaction they specifically do not approve of this proposal. (Logic a la Rincon?)
And of course Congress sets the budget for Immigration enforcement. If they don’t fund ICE enough to round up all the illegas and deport them can we assume they do not approve of this strategy either. (Again, logic a la Rincon?)
Yes. They can leave. But if they’re here and working and contributing, well, see post #238.
Just because a politician does something that might get him votes doesn’t necessarily mean he’s doing it only to get votes. I know, I know, what kind of gullible fool am I, anyway?! 
For all I know, you are completely correct about Obama’s motivation, though I don’t think he desperately needs votes nearly as much as Romney does, the way things look currently. But in general I don’t really care about a politician’s motivation if I agree with the end results. But this is getting way off topic, so I’ll say no more.
Oh, not to ignore your other points but I didn’t enter this thread to argue those topics, so I didn’t respond…
Then again, there’s this.
I know, I know, it’s electoral votes that count, but I think we’d both agree that statistics and polls aren’t worth squat this far out from election day.
And, I’ll give it a rest, too.
If America’s economy is sputtering, it’s precisely because of this sense of entitlement. We’ve somehow got it in our head we are owed a middle class lifestyle simply by virtue of being “American”, and if we walk out of college and into the big bad world and are not immediately rewarded for the minimal effort it takes not to get kicked out of university with an ace job, we just give up, move back in with our parents, and play Diablo III until our eyes rot out.
Maybe some competition will put the fight back into us. Most of us are here for one reason- our ancestors were broke and figured it’d be better to fight it out in some crazy foreign land that rot away without opportunity. And so we started businesses, invented stuff, built a great university system, and created a vibrant world-leading economy.
So why do you think we now get to coast along, enjoying a top-of-the-line lifestyle into perpetuity while doing nothing more than punching the clock and waiting for the pension to kick in? So you went to college? What does that mean? Managing to graduate college takes some bare minimum persistence, but it’s it’s not really the kind of laurels you can expect to rest comfortably on.
If illegal immigrants take your job…figure out something else to do. Start a business. Retrain yourself. Move to someplace with more opportunity. Work for lower pay. Fight it out. My uncle realized that house painting was an unsustainable industry for him, so he sought retraining and is now a teacher. He didn’t just curse Mexico and give up, he figured something out.
Put more simply, if an illegal immigrant is taking your job, they have somehow figured out how to do it better or more efficiently than you and economically, it’s better for them to do it and for you to do whatever it is that you are efficient at. And if your only response is “But, but, but I’m an American goddammit,” well, America is going to have a lot of soul searching to do in today’s global economy.
So I’m trying to get a handle on this whole idea of executive overreach, and I came across this article from the National Review. John Yoo, the writer, makes the point that there are two ways the president could justify his new policy: refuse to prosecute the immigration laws because they are unconstitutional, which isn’t being done or is even at issue, or through the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Then he makes the following rather vague statement that while Obama is doing the second thing, he isn’t doing it in good faith:
I don’t understand what Yoo means by this. “Entire law” to me seems to refer to the whole of immigration law. If so, then how can there be any “rest of immigration law”? Or does “entire law” only refer to some (part of a) law pertaining only to minors who were here before the age of 16, have been here 5 years, etc. In any case, why isn’t this in good faith? Yoo even states right before this quote that the Justice Department must set priorities when deciding which cases to prosecute.
Look, I’m not much on “entitlements.” But I do believe that citizenship should have some benefits. Hell, I’ve earned 'em. I served my country. I’m partially disabled due to that service.
It might not even be, as you say, that “they have somehow figured out how to do it better or more efficiently than you”. I (or a new college graduate) might even be able to do it better, but there’s an illegal immigrant already in the position. They shouldn’t be there.
Assuming there is an underlying rationale which makes sense, as the rationale for this move does, sure.
If you are worried about immigrants taking jobs away from college-educated Americans, worry more about the Indian and Asian kids that study in the U.S.
Anyway, these kids would be working no matter what kinds of papers they had. This just gives them -the qualified ones - better opportunities - real wages, unions, benefits, etc. The difference for me is that instead of a student planning to sell drugs, be a waitress, a hairdresser or a mechanic or a landscaper, they may decide to go a little further than that. It means that no one (especially the girls) feels like they have to tie themselves to another person just for security. It means independence. And for some, it means they may be able to better escape bad situations.
I wish it opened up the military.
And it requires a high school diploma. That is awesome. For a teacher who works with about 40 per cent ESL/20 per cent undocumented immigrant, that is AWESOME.
Also: Wondering how many people in here boohooing about kids getting work permits also boohoo about the Obama admin’s policy on marijuana. What with federal laws and all.