Of course I do. Do you honestly think that this isn’t simply the first step toward an end run around the failure of the Dream Act? “Vote for me, and I’ll get the Dream Act passed next term.” Don’t be obtuse.
No, you’re being intentionally oblivious.
Doesn’t it seem rather obvious that, by telling DHS to ignore existing Constitutional law, that he is not fulfilling the oath he took as President?
Look…I don’t like Romney. I support gay marriage. I’m pro-choice. Obstructionist Republicans piss me off–as do screaming leftie Democrats.
But, Jesus Christ, you simply can’t void law by Executive Order!
This would be a plausible argument in a fantasy world in which the executive conceivably has the power to deport every undocumented immigrant.
I think the opinions of people who are conversant in what’s going on in realityville should be the only opinions we take seriously.
Somehow I bet you can’t point to examples of your principled objections to the ever-increasing power of the executive branch and the theory of the “unitary executive” from back when these changes actually happened – when it wasn’t a “screaming leftie Democrat” rewriting the scope of the executive.
Unbunch those panties, bud. Obama isn’t “ignoring existing constitutional law” or “voiding law by executive order.” He’s exercising the discretion granted to the executive under federal immigration law (Title 8, US Code). Had you not noticed that USCIS doesn’t deport everyone it arrests on immigration violations?
While I’d like it better if the DREAM Act were passed, I think this is okay. Obama can say he’d prefer Congress to put forth a more concrete and long-term plan, but for an executive order, this is great.
If he fails at this (like his last immigration speech), I swear to God I’ll never trust another politician again. I had students crying about it today because they were so happy. I hope he doesn’t take that away.
I also hope that the visas don’t have to be renewed from their home country.
Very little in the way of practical details have been released so far (they are promising further details in 60 days), but I really, really doubt this is going to be the kind of work authorization that needs to be renewed outside the U.S. (and I am curious about what kind you are talking about that can only be renewed from outside the U.S.? Almost all can be renewed from within the U.S., though sometimes there are strategic or practical reasons why it might make sense to do it from outside the U.S. in some circumstances).
In fact, the lack of any mention of travel authorization is one thing that concerns me about this. It might mean that, for example, a beneficiary who leaves the U.S. to attend a grandparent’s funeral would be prohibited from returning and generally be SOL.
(BTW I apologize in advance if I am more AWOL from this thread than I would like. The phones at work were ringing off the hook pretty much the second the news came out. I think next week and onward we are going to be completely slammed.)
I have no problem with the executive branch deciding to focus deportation efforts in one way or another. There are limited resources and you have to start somewhere.
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 read a good article today. What happens when the next Republican president decides that there are “limited resources” and decides not to prosecute insider trading, enforce EPA regulations, or hate crime laws? Will the posters in this thread be so deferential to executive policies?
It seems like it could create a situation like you have in countries like the U.A.E., they have huge numbers of guest workers who can never become citizens. Obviously the situation in the U.A.E. is very unique, but I do think it’s a problem if you create a class of people who can work here in perpetuity but with no actual hope of ever becoming citizens.
I’ve never felt it was really a good idea to deport people who grew up here, and who immigrated here illegally through no conscious choice of their own. If they lived here for several years of their childhood then they were shaped by American values and probably educated by our school system, we should want to “earn the dividends” on that investment we have already made in them by allowing them to become productive taxpayers.
Population collapse is a serious problem in the Western world with aging populations and low birth rates. America has one of the best birth rates of the Western industrialized nations and in large part it is because of our immigrant population who have many more children on average than America at large.
I’ve always been for liberal immigration policies simply because labor is an important factor of production, and if large waves of immigration from Mexico can prevent us from falling into the trap many European countries and Japan are in (with aging populations and clear indications of actual population collapse in a few generations) then I’m all for it.
I do feel however that adults who immigrate here illegally, still need to be deported. We do have to have border integrity and if someone, as an adult, comes here illegally I don’t feel they should receive amnesty just because they have escaped detection for x number of years. But, I’m generally in favor of liberalized immigration regulations, I think seasonal farm workers from Mexico who really just want to come here for the season and earn cash and then go back home to their families for the rest of the year should basically be bale to drive through the border, show a Passport, and be on their way.
I’d like for any citizen of Mexico (and I guess throw Canada in too and make it NAFTA-wide) to be able to work here if they wish, and if they want to establish residency when they do so I have no problem with them being able to go through the naturalization process.
Eva Lunda: Thanks, as usual, for your perspective and the voice of experience. I’m glad to hear you think that travel overseas to renew is unlikely.
Mr. Mallard (the one who was actually on the visa, O-class for those wondering where I got the crazy idea about leaving the country to renew) pointed out that it’s a bad idea just because it creates a sort of de facto second-class citizenship, something he and I both object to on moral grounds.
I had to renew my TN visa at a “port of entry”, but I’m not sure I had to leave the country to do it. I always did, because I was visiting family.
I am now wondering what to do about removing the restrictions on my green card (due in February), since everything immigration-related is going to go crazy for a while. I was told I can’t start the process too early, but I also can’t miss the deadline. I’ll be making some more phones ring off the hook next week so I can get things straight, I’m afraid.
Yes. When we were hungry for workers. That is not the case now.
I agree that if there is a skill set we need, we should make it easier for those people to come here.
Well, some of us don’t think it’s a good idea to reward bad behavior. As we found from the Amnesty of the 1980s, it just incentivises more illegal immigration. all with the hopes that we’ll do something just as stupid again. Like Obama is doing now.
Also, and this isn’t a small thing, some of us think it is grossly unfair to the thousands and thousands of people who want to come here and have been waiting with great patience and great frustration. These people have done what we’ve asked of them, and they’re waiting in line. And now? Fuck those dumb bastards. They should have just snuck in like the others and their children would now be able to live the American Dream.
This is smart, politically. Bad news for Romney. It really is an amazing coincidence that it suddenly became the “right thing to do” a few months before the election!
Let’s get one thing straight. The U.S. doesn’t deport nearly enough illegal immigrants. Something like <10% are actually deported as they should be. So this isn’t an actual change of policy at all. This move is strictly an electoral move. So no, it can’t possible backfire.
Second, this is straight-up amnesty for certain individuals. It says “You know how you were here illegally before? Well not anymore!” That’s amnesty.
You mean like Senate Democrats who have refused to pass any of the dozens of jobs bill passed in the House? That kind of unwilling to compromise?
INS hasn’t existed for almost a decade.
In other words, Romney possibly would do what Obama is certainly doing now.
Are you sure? Considering you only have to have been here 5 years and be 30 or under, that suggests a lot of people who were 18-25 at their time of arrival can benefit too, doesn’t it?
The Cayman Islands have/had a system somewhat like this. The UK effectively forced them to implement changes so that there is no longer a working-in-perpetuity on a work permit option. The concern was that the old way would be struck down by the European Court of Human Rights precisely for this second-class-personhood problem.
The solution hasn’t been pretty. A guest worker gets up to seven years (in one to three year increments) and then must leave (gets "rolled-over, in local parlance) unless his/her employer makes application on his behalf for key employee status. If key employee status is granted then the worker gets up to two more years. Upon reaching 8 years the worker may apply for permanent resident status (which can later lead to citizenship). If rejected for PR, the worker gets rolled over.
Any employee who is rolled over can return after being out of the island for one year. The whole 7 years starts over then.
This has led to two problems… companies refuse to locate in Cayman (or even have left the jurisdiction) due to uncertainty for senior management. And the rank and file employees are uprooted every 7 years for a minimum 1 year posting elsewhere - meeting the requirements of the law but not doing much to address the underlying concern of a population without a permanent sense of belonging.
Since implementing this rollover policy the expat workers have been more reluctant to buy property or make other significant investments in the community.
