What seems to be lost in this whole discussion is that the federal government is already supposed to be securing the border and deporting people who are here illegally. Not only do they fail at this basic responsibility, but when a state such as Arizona steps in and tries to do it when they choose not to, they take the state to court.
So as part of a compromise on an immigration bill to (create amnesty, reward, grant citizenship, insert your own term) for nearly all of these people who broke the law to come here, an insistence that, pretty please, can we start enforcing the laws first so we aren’t in the same position again 20 years from now is “extreme”?
Dems say that these two things should be done simultaneously, instead of enforcement first. Why is enforcement of existing law a bargaining chip? It’s the President’s constitutional duty.
News to me. In reality this makes little sense. The point has been made that the enforcement of deportations has increased, doing more enforcement is to be expected and facilitated by the new regulations, legalization (not an amnesty, no matter how much you like to change definitions) can also happen at the same time.
What really seems to be lost in this whole discussion is the constant GOP drumming of some apparent failure at the border, which the very Democratic president has been securing much much better than the supposedly stern law and order Republican. Now, given Obama’s success in securing our border, and his credibility (like Nixon going to China) that only his administration can do something about immigration reform that’s not entirely racist, conservatives waltz in and claim that Arizona, that state of the “show your papers!” law would do a better job?
Laughable. Utterly ridiculous.
Listen, conservatives. If you want an example of how to secure the border, look at what Obama’s doing. He’s enforcing the laws and deporting people even though, as many conservatives claim, those people are his base. Obama’s the only one who can do it, and now the GOP marches into the debate as if they have a clue, as if they ever gave a damn about the border, as if they have something to add to the discussion and pretend like Obama isn’t doing the job a hundred times better than any of them could?
And I suppose that, just to clear things up, this is one of those situations in which people don’t have to obey the law, right jtgain? Because even though the holy and sacred Constitution says that border security is a matter for the Feds, if conservatives don’t like what the Feds are doing, then its ok to break the law, right? Just wanted to clear that up
Who are these people you’re talking about? There are children in those numbers, children whose parents brought them here in-vitro, that you guys want to unilaterally kick out. I thought conservatives were all about the fetus having more rights than the already-birthed mother?? The DREAM Act deals with children, jt. Again, CHILDREN, who didn’t choose to come here, but who can’t simply pack up their My Little Ponies and fly back to Guatemala. You want to send them back.
I don’t know, why are Republicans holding up appointments to agencies that were legally created, federal courts without judges, and administrative positions unfilled?
Oh I forgot, why are you claiming that enforcement isn’t done when its been done better now, under Obama, than it has been in years? Hell, enforcement should be totally taken off the table, its already happening, we don’t need to repeat it again in another bill. Its just redundant.
So, no cite, and the flaw in your point is already apparent, as you have been helpful to report before: Obama and the Democrats are already enforcing the rules more effectively than previous Republicans.
Then just humor us and put it in the bill. If enforcement is to be “expected and facilitated by new regulations” make the regulations law and remove the waiver provisions. If Obama really is the warrior who has actually sealed the border and is deporting criminals by the millions, then put his enforcement policies into the law.
If the enforcement mechanisms don’t start first, then the border will be flooded by people who will wait 25 years for the next “immigration reform” that allows their illegal actions to qualify for a green card.
As even Rubio pointed, removing the waivers is code for allowing only inhumane provisions. Good fodder for extreme conservatives, but good enough also for me to show others in my community that think to become republican to think twice about it.
It is already law. The discussion now is also related on putting even more enforcing tools in place.
Less likely as part of the enforcement includes tools like e-verify, you are sounding as just another conservative that has not looked at the law, but just to the alarmist conservative media.
Codifying who is eligible and who is not is not difficult. Take criminal records. Why should criminals be legalized? Deport them. Yet even something that obvious, the administration can make exceptions. Or simply not deport anyone with a criminal record.
What if their criminality is based on resistance to human-rights violations? What if they were charged with carrying a weapon openly (in defense of their God-given rights)? Not all criminal records are equal.
The problem is one of moving goalposts. The Republicans aren’t demanding enforcement protocols in the law because they actually want them; they’re demanding them as an excuse to throw an immature temper tantrum and oppose the law because they’re inherently opposed to government doing anything worthwhile. No matter what enforcement Democrats actually do, they’ll demand some higher standard, and if Democrats manage to meet that standard, too, they’ll just raise it again, so that nothing the Democrats do can ever be satisfactory. These moving goalposts are evidenced by the very topic of discussion of this thread, a senator opposing a bill that he himself co-sponsored.
There are not so many exceptions that they can’t be codified. Your first example would take place in the home country. The standard can be as simple as a foreign crime would have to be a crime in the US to count. Your second example, you follow the gun laws of your state or locality. If you didn’t, you aren’t eligible. Besides, the right to bear arms is a right for Americans. When foreigners openly bearing arms enter our country it’s called an invasion.
That’s completely wrong. The Republicans are desperate to pass an immigration reform bill. The Democrats know that, which is why the bill has everything they want. Their “concession” is a promise to enforce the law.
Then why do they (specifically Rubio and the other R members of the Gang of Eight) keep offering changes and objections to a bill they already agreed to?
As **Zakalwe **pointed out, not all crimes are created equal, your denial of allowing the federal government to make exceptions leads only to gross injustices like “three strikes and you are out”
And once again, your efforts only point to gross ignorance and more points for me to use to show conservative elements in my community and family of what Republicans really think.
) but past experience shows that a lot is not reported by your sources.