The Immigration/Amnesty (Executive Order) Thread

[T.Lex]

Simple. The amnesty requires some application to Homeland Security to normalize the status of the illegal alien, such as the Deferred Action program. Prevent any funds going to this endeavor and you have defunded it. No applications can be processed, no one can be granted amnesty.

But then there is no action on legitimate (non-amnestied) applications, as well. I mean, that might be a leverage point - the Rs saying that we'll hold up "regular" actions along with the amnestied ones. But then that becomes a whole different political issue, with the tug-the-heartstrings crowd gaining many more news stories.

Respectfully, IMHO, that is not a good option in the long run.

Impeachment would likely fire up the Democrat's base, which is what they want. The Democrats raised this before the last election to try and poison the well, now Obama's actions (taking three not button issues almost immediately after the Mid-Terms and giving the GOP a one finger salute over them) has been designed to provoke confrontation.

No real argument. Pursue impeachment and increase the chance of losing the next election.

Here's a constructive thought (I hate the idea of being perceived simply as a nihilist): Rs should actually pass a decent immigration reform bill. Define "decent" however they want, but ignore the EO amnesty issue and give the president something to either sign or veto. Come up with a plan. Lead. Do something other than whine.

 

[T.Lex]

I was too young in the Clinton/Bush days, but how did Bush win after the Clinton impeachment fiasco? Were the people jointly behind pushing him out? Things feel far more divisive today than back then, from what I could perceive. Granted, social media has made politics feel more extreme.

If Clinton had run again, he would've beaten Bush, IMHO.

Al Gore was not a good candidate. Bush was able to sell the "compassionate conservativism" and connect with voters better than Gore. I think that's the simplest answer. The impeachment didn't really impact anything, and was generally considered a waste of time. That's my take on it.

Things are much more divisive now. And that's saying something. At the time, with militias all over the place, Ruby Ridge (technically under Bush 41) and Waco and Oklahoma City, Elian Gonzalez, things seemed bad.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Report: Pres. Obama to announce immigration order on Friday in Las Vegas; Update: Obama to announce immgration plan in prime time address Thursday | Twitchy

 

[OakRiver]

Couple questions here.

I was too young in the Clinton/Bush days, but how did Bush win after the Clinton impeachment fiasco? Were the people jointly behind pushing him out? Things feel far more divisive today than back then, from what I could perceive. Granted, social media has made politics feel more extreme.

I had no interest in US politics then, so I can't say for sure. However it seems as though 31 Democrats joined the Republicans in the impeachment vote

But then there is no action on legitimate (non-amnestied) applications, as well. I mean, that might be a leverage point - the Rs saying that we'll hold up "regular" actions along with the amnestied ones. But then that becomes a whole different political issue, with the tug-the-heartstrings crowd gaining many more news stories.

Respectfully, IMHO, that is not a good option in the long run.

The language of the defunding should be able to specify that any Deferred Action applicants be excluded, while those applying for visas, adjusting status, etc. are not affected. I in no way want to see those who legally came into this country disadvantaged because of the actions of those who chose not to follow the law.

The heart string angle is just about the only one that the pro-amnesty crowd have tried to play (bar racism of course). The narrative that we should feel bad for people being deported because of their law breaking doesn't work on most, but you are correct; doing the same for legal immigrants would be very different

No real argument. Pursue impeachment and increase the chance of losing the next election.

Here's a constructive thought (I hate the idea of being perceived simply as a nihilist): Rs should actually pass a decent immigration reform bill. Define "decent" however they want, but ignore the EO amnesty issue and give the president something to either sign or veto. Come up with a plan. Lead. Do something other than whine.

The problem is that at present there is little to no common ground. The POTUS wants amnesty and nothing concrete on border security. The Republicans want the border secured and no amnesty. Even if the Republicans get a bill together before the weekend Obama will reject it and accuse them of not co-operating.

 

[OakRiver]

Report: Pres. Obama to announce immigration order on Friday in Las Vegas; Update: Obama to announce immgration plan in prime time address Thursday | Twitchy

"And so what I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as President to make the system work better, even as I continue to work with Congress to encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem."
Translation;
"The Republicans won't give me what I want, so I'm going to do my own thing. Then I can act surprised when they don't want to co-operate with me"

 

[T.Lex]

The problem is that at present there is little to no common ground. The POTUS wants amnesty and nothing concrete on border security. The Republicans want the border secured and no amnesty. Even if the Republicans get a bill together before the weekend Obama will reject it and accuse them of not co-operating.

I would expand your first sentence to include little or no common ground among Republicans (or conservatives). Ideally, there could be something that would address the millions of "illegal" immigrants that actually help the economy ("path to citizenship") AND border security. To me, it doesn't seem like it should be that hard. Yeah, each side (within the Rs) would have to compromise, but gee - that's kinda what politics is.

And it wouldn't have to happen by Friday. My point is, let O do whatever he wants now, but then come up with a REAL solution. Not more political gamesmanship. Whatever he does will be a stopgap, something less than a solution. Congress should actually have more flexibility to craft something intelligent. Then let O carry the political hot potato of sign or veto.

I guess I'm a skeptical optimist.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Watch Obama Admit That Obama's Immigration Executive Order Is Illegal

Hah, great tweet: https://twitter.com/The_Autopen/status/535159724472541187

I’m transcribing POTUS’s immigration speech into Spanish. Anybody know what the Spanish phrase for "l'état, c'est moi” is?

Also

CBS, NBC, Fox won’t take Obama’s prime-time immigration speech live; ABC still deciding. He should order them to.

 

[OakRiver]

I would expand your first sentence to include little or no common ground among Republicans (or conservatives). Ideally, there could be something that would address the millions of "illegal" immigrants that actually help the economy ("path to citizenship") AND border security. To me, it doesn't seem like it should be that hard. Yeah, each side (within the Rs) would have to compromise, but gee - that's kinda what politics is.

And it wouldn't have to happen by Friday. My point is, let O do whatever he wants now, but then come up with a REAL solution. Not more political gamesmanship. Whatever he does will be a stopgap, something less than a solution. Congress should actually have more flexibility to craft something intelligent. Then let O carry the political hot potato of sign or veto.

I guess I'm a skeptical optimist.

They tried floating that idea among their base around this time last year. It didn't go so well, so they dropped that idea. I'm sorry but no. No illegal immigrant should be rewarded. It is a cornerstone of the law that no man or woman should benefit from their crimes. Working under the table, depressing the wages of Americans, getting public assistance, getting free education, getting medical treatment, etc. etc.
If experiences in California are any measure of the impact of illegal immigrants;

In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals. . . .
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians focuses on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants to the tune of about $1.1 billion. The enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants over the intervening ten years is due to the rapid growth in illegal residents. It is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.
"Nineteen ninety-four was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration. Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens," said Stein. "Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy."
​

Source - Illegal Immigration Costs California $10.5 Billion Annually

According to the Legislative Analyst's office, data from 2008-2009 suggest that California spends $4.2 billion on services for illegal immigrants each year. The cost of schooling the estimated 270,000 children of illegals is $1.9 billion. The costs of incarcerating illegal convicts is $1 billion, only $100 million of which is reimbursed by the federal government. The California Department of Corrections reports about 18,300 “deportable felons” in state prisons, each costing an average of $44,563 a year. Medical services provided to illegals totaled $775 million, primarily in state-reimbursed emergency care at hospitals.
​

Source - Golden State Liberty: Counting the Cost of Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.
​

Source - The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010)

 

[Mgderf]

So, Obama has announced he will announce his immigration executive action on Thursday at 8:00pm.
My tin-foil hat theory is that he knows Thursday is also the day that the verdict in the Ferguson Mo. grand jury will be announced.
He is hoping that the Ferguson story will take the lime-light off of his immigration move.

Just watch.
I'll bet the grand jury announces tomorrow.

 

[Cygnus]

Just watch.
I'll bet the grand jury announces tomorrow.

Nope. They just announced it will likely be Friday. I think the order will actually be signed Friday as well, in Vegas. But I think it is timed to cause maximum division. This from the transparent, healer of gridlock, and champion of bi-partisinship.......


Oh and as for the current situation. Why not: Border security , guest worker program ( all currently here can apply within 90 days), harsh punishment for businesses that employee anyone w/o the guest worker card, and also a path to RESIDENCY!.. Why oh why would people who cheated get a path to CITIZENSHIP?????

New Bumper Sticker: Residency SI! Citizenship NO!- About as bi-partisan as you can realisticly get. IMO.

 

[T.Lex]

No illegal immigrant should be rewarded. It is a cornerstone of the law that no man or woman should benefit from their crimes.

And here is where a couple philosophical disagreements are revealed. A first offense is a misdemeanor, generally, assuming no other crime has been committed. Think shoplifting. Or domestic abuse in some jurisdictions. Somewhere on that end of the spectrum. Also, what reward? If they are here, they are already making a life for themselves and their family. That isn't enough reward already?

But the real difference is my perspective. I actually think in-bound immigration should be relaxed. Maybe not much, but we should appreciate the fact people want to come here. America is still about an idea, a principle. That idea - however you want to describe it - beckons to people who want to work. People who don't want to work are too lazy to get here. (In my experience.)

Working under the table, depressing the wages of Americans, getting public assistance, getting free education, getting medical treatment, etc. etc.

On some of these counts, we created our own problems. Minimum wage is more a distortion of the labor market than anything else (IMHO). If you are in favor of market-based wages, let's start there. In terms of getting stuff for "free" - since they don't pay taxes (because they can't), it is hard for them to pay for services, eh?

As for...

A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year....Source - The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010)

For me, all of those stats help define the CURRENT problem. So what's the solution? We simply cannot deport all illegal aliens, even if we could find them. That would be a purge of statist proportions. It would require greater LEO invasion of privacy to determine status. The legislation would make the Patriot Act look like the Declaration of Independence. That's not even counting the hit to our economy.

I do not intend on being disrespectful, but I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of what the problem really is.

 

[OakRiver]

And here is where a couple philosophical disagreements are revealed. A first offense is a misdemeanor, generally, assuming no other crime has been committed. Think shoplifting. Or domestic abuse in some jurisdictions. Somewhere on that end of the spectrum. Also, what reward? If they are here, they are already making a life for themselves and their family. That isn't enough reward already?

They benefit from a better life. They benefit from public assistance that they have no right to. They benefit from healthcare they have no right to. They benefit from education opportunities they have no right to.
They qualify for public assistance and subsidies that lawful immigrants do not have access to for up to a decade after entering the country legally. After their application, medical, interview, full examination of their background etc.

But the real difference is my perspective. I actually think in-bound immigration should be relaxed. Maybe not much, but we should appreciate the fact people want to come here. America is still about an idea, a principle. That idea - however you want to describe it - beckons to people who want to work. People who don't want to work are too lazy to get here. (In my experience.)

"I in no way want to see those who legally came into this country disadvantaged because of the actions of those who chose not to follow the law."
I have absolutely no issue with legal immigration. If I did I would not be here.

On some of these counts, we created our own problems. Minimum wage is more a distortion of the labor market than anything else (IMHO). If you are in favor of market-based wages, let's start there. In terms of getting stuff for "free" - since they don't pay taxes (because they can't), it is hard for them to pay for services, eh?

They cannot pay for services because they have no right to be here, yet they have no problem taking what they have no right to

For me, all of those stats help define the CURRENT problem. So what's the solution? We simply cannot deport all illegal aliens, even if we could find them. That would be a purge of statist proportions. It would require greater LEO invasion of privacy to determine status. The legislation would make the Patriot Act look like the Declaration of Independence. That's not even counting the hit to our economy.

I do not intend on being disrespectful, but I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of what the problem really is.

Make it economically unviable for illegal aliens to remain in the country. Absolutely no public assistance. No driving licences. No healthcare. No education. Change the requirements for citizenship. Expand e-verify, with fines of $100K for each employee who is an illegal alien, and 6 months of Federal jail time for the employer for each infraction after the first.
The illegal immigrants are by and large here for economic reasons. Take that reason away and the problem will resolve itself.

 

[dansgotguns]

Sorry their parents placed them in a horrible situation... are we to send them back with their parents? Place them in foster care and allow them to stay? Allow them all to stay and create another anchor baby dilemma? It isn't America's fault their parents made the choices they did, and they shouldn't be rewarded for those decisions.

What exactly is an anchor baby? My wife is Mexican-American, her parents were here illegally. Her mother is now a citizen and her dad is not. (But he has a social security number, idk they are from Illinois) id say 10% of her family are here illegally. My wife is a nurse and in the army with me. She's helped save tons of American lives in a Chicago hospital, did I mention she serves our great country in the army?

I'm all for having immigrants come over the right way, but booting the kids isn't right.

 

[T.Lex]

Make it economically unviable for illegal aliens to remain in the country. Absolutely no public assistance. No driving licences. No healthcare. No education. Change the requirements for citizenship. Expand e-verify, with fines of $100K for each employee who is an illegal alien, and 6 months of Federal jail time for the employer for each infraction after the first.
The illegal immigrants are by and large here for economic reasons. Take that reason away and the problem will resolve itself.

Without rehashing the philosophical difference of opinion, are you at all willing to accept a compromise solution for anything less than what you've proposed? I mean, I think reasonable people can disagree over whether your proposal will actually work, or have unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem.

Just trying to gauge openness to moving out of the current situation incrementally.

My wife is Mexican-American, her parents were here illegally.

I'm curious, how many people opining in this thread about how wrong "amnesty" is know or work with (or are related to) illegal immigrants? This is certainly non-scientific, but I think the level of interaction "us" people have with "those" people affects the perspective on the issue.

 

[OakRiver]

Without rehashing the philosophical difference of opinion, are you at all willing to accept a compromise solution for anything less than what you've proposed? I mean, I think reasonable people can disagree over whether your proposal will actually work, or have unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem.

Just trying to gauge openness to moving out of the current situation incrementally.

That depends;
- What is a "compromise solution"?
- What do you perceive to be the unintended consequences?
- What increments do you propose, and in what time frame?

I'm curious, how many people opining in this thread about how wrong "amnesty" is know or work with (or are related to) illegal immigrants? This is certainly non-scientific, but I think the level of interaction "us" people have with "those" people affects the perspective on the issue.

My opinion would not change

 

[T.Lex]

My opinion would not change

That depends;
- What is a "compromise solution"?
- What do you perceive to be the unintended consequences?
- What increments do you propose, and in what time frame?

I reversed the order of your statements. Would your opinion change under any scenario illustrated by your questions?

To put it another way, can you envision ANY compromise that you would support? Is ANY unintended consequence too catastrophic? Is there ANY increment that you would accept?

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a look at what people trying to "legally" immigrate have to face.

 

[OakRiver]

I reversed the order of your statements. Would your opinion change under any scenario illustrated by your questions?

To put it another way, can you envision ANY compromise that you would support? Is ANY unintended consequence too catastrophic? Is there ANY increment that you would accept?

Answer my questions and we'll see. You ask me if I would accept compromises but can't describe what compromise you mean.

Right now it seems that you are conflating two separate statements; the first one you asked was whether I would accept a compromise, my answer was that it would depend on the compromise. The second one was whether my opinion of amnesty would change if I knew someone here illegally.

 

[OakRiver]

Here's a look at what people trying to "legally" immigrate have to face.

That actually makes the process look a lot simpler than it is.

 

[miguel]

A fence might not keep them all out, but it should slow enough of them down to let the snipers take a better shot.