Distinction without a difference. Illegal immigrant sort of implies illegal, does it not?
I know what the appeals court in Kansas said. I don’t believe they were correct.
What good is a law that says, “You can’t come here unless we say it’s OK, but if you happen to get here by hook or crook, then nevermind.”?
The process he’s “directing” is to ignore the law. There is nothing ambiguous about what he is doing. It’s not even a thinly disguised attempt to buy votes.
Cite that it’s cheaper to educate children for 12 years or deport them with their parents. Add in the medical costs while you’re doing the math.
[quote=“Eva_Luna, post:60, topic:625310”]
Just for kicks, here’s a bit more nitty-gritty on program implementation.
[QUOTE]
From part of that form:
"What offenses qualify as a “significant misdemeanor”?
A significant misdemeanor is a federal, state, or local criminal offense punishable by no more than one year of imprisonment or even no imprisonment that involves: violence, threats, or assault, including domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary, larceny, or fraud; driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; obstruction of justice or bribery; unlawful flight from arrest, prosecution, or the scene of an accident; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or unlawful possession of drugs." (bolding mine)
I guess, since, although they have committed a crime by entering the US illegally, but have not yet been accused of the crime of doing so, merely being here doesn’t meet the criteria of “unlawfully fleeing.” But it sure contradicts logic.
Illegal immigrants pay billions in taxes
Illegal immigrants are not a net burden on the economy.
the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.
First, a significant body of research and accompanying data suggest that, even in this economic slump, illegal immigrants are net contributors to the economy in taxes paid versus services consumed.
New Texas study says illegal immigrants are net benefit to economy
Immigrants – documented and undocumented – have a net benefit to the nation’s total economic output, raising it by a reported $21.5 billion per year (USA Today).
Okay, so now your argument has descended to “If the law were different from what it actually is, this would be an outrageous violation of it!”
[quote=“Rysdad, post:63, topic:625310”]
[quote=“Eva_Luna, post:60, topic:625310”]
Just for kicks, here’s a bit more nitty-gritty on program implementation.
I posted the part about “significant misdemeanor” before I read the USCIS FAQ (which hadn’t been posted yet when I looked yesterday, BTW). You are being awfully pedantic about your definition of “crime.” There is a specific exemption for people under 18 from the penalties for unlawful presence, and entering the U.S. without authorization is, in the vast majority of cases, a civil offense, not a criminal one (with the notable exception of reentering after deportation without a specific waiver).
I think the “significant misdemeanor” issue is going to create some headaches. There will be many nits to pick there, unless it ends up being defined further in whatever regs are eventually released.
That’s arguable, but that’s the way the law works. One of the reasons that “illegal immigrant” is considered a pejorative term is that it is used to describe people who have not immigrated illegally. You’re talking about lots of people who had valid visas and overstayed them, for example (or, in some cases since 2001, had them revoked without a hearing or even without their knowledge.) There are even people who entered the US at USCIS-specified entry points without a valid visa because nobody bothered to check for one. The latter are not legal, per se, but Congress has deemed them regulatory infractions rather than crimes: the federal equivalent of a parking ticket.
This is all beside the point, though, which I think mister nyx’s following post makes quite well. You are complaining about something Obama is doing on the grounds that it is a gross violation of the law. I have demonstrated- quite conclusively, frankly- that what Obama is doing is perfectly legal. Now you’re effectively shifting the goalposts by complaining about the law itself, and that’s Congress’ problem, not Obama’s.
No, I’m not. The appeals court interpreted a law that, I believe, would be interpreted differently elsewhere. The law is still the law. The president isn’t upholding the law. Full stop.
“Unlawful flight from arrest” doesn’t mean “not being arrested after committing a crime”. It’s a term of art that means crossing state or international boundaries with the intent of avoiding arrest.
What appeals court? I gave you a SCOTUS decision referencing the executive’s enforcement discretion.
ETA: On review, it looks like I cut off the reporter citation in the SCOTUS quote, which may have confused you. It’s Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956).
Just picking 2 states I come up with billions in costs:
California alone pays 10.5 billion in costs.
Texas pays 1.3 billion in health care alone for illegal immigrants.
No I don’t think so. I agree with the policy, and considering Congress’ inaction, perhaps this will get the ball rolling toward a two-pronged approach to immigration of making deserving illegal immigrants citizens while increasing border security.
If anything, it’ll just encourage Hispanics to vote for the Democrats-Republicans may not be able to get Bush’s margins on the Hispanic vote.
Picking those two states at random, of course, and not because of their somewhat-greater-than-average populations or numbers of undocumented workers, or anything. 
This warms the heart of a screaming liberal like me.
Obama is doing what he said he would.
The fact that the Republicans have openly stated long ago they will do everything possible to block any major legislation, making Obama a one-term President lets you know there were not a lot of other options at this point.
Gay marriage, immigration reform…this is the Obama I voted for and am quite happy to continue to support wholeheartedly. He is showing me what he said he would do, and what he intends to continue to do after he is re-elected.
As far as this being “just a political maneuver” in an election year?
Well, pretty damn brave if you ask me. Most candidates hide from controversy during elections. Too afraid to lose a vote here or there. But for those who have been waiting for some real change - this is about the best we can hope for with a group of nasty, mean-spirited, homophobic, sexist, bigoted and racist Republicans who delight in blocking every damned bill.
Obama is pretty much throwing down his gauntlet and saying, “This is what I believe and stand for. Vote for me, or step back in time with Romney.”
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.
This is untrue. Yes, some pay taxes and will never see the benefit of those dollars for retirement. But they receive the benefit of using roads, etc. Then there’s the pressure they put on our schools, by artificially increasing the percent of kids who don’t have English as a first language, and hell, just being in the public school cost system costs us money. And then of course there is health care, where they use emergence rooms like clinics; where they can get all manner of care and not pay a friggin dime. This is one of the reasons that so many hospitals in the Southwest have had to close their doors. It also raises the price of healthcare for the rest of us. A hospital has to extract more money from those who they can make pay, via insurance and copays, because they know that there is a chunk of people who get the whole kit and boodle for free.
Not sure where you get your info, but all children residing here are entitled to our educational system. (Plyler v. Doe)
Only a select number of states give undocumented students in-state tuition rates, and they are NOT eligible for federal loans and grants. Most don’t go because it’s not affordable, and kids depend on private scholarships…which aren’t readily available.
How many undocumented immigrants do you think are on the welfare rolls? :dubious: Stop with the myths, please.
I’m not trying to be pedantic. But, even if it is a civil offense, it’s an offense–a ongoing offense that should multiply its severity, not minimize it.
And, over-staying a visa is even worse. You knew the rules. You broke 'em. Provide a good reason why you shouldn’t be deported.
In this case, because you were 13 years old when you arrived and probably didn’t even know what a visa was.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that, the legality of it. Are you disputing that there is a cost to that?
And whose fault is that? The bottom line is that zero undocumented anyones should get reduced tuition. What is the logic that an undocumented Nicaraguan is entitled to go to a California college and a lower rate than someone who lives in a neighboring state like Nevada?
One is too many. No? How many would you personally like to pay for?
We all pay for the choices our parents make. Good and bad. Under current law (until I’m President ;)), the kid is entitled to stay. The parents are not. So the parents can either chose to move with their child, as people do every day, or they can have him stay with family members.