DREAM ACT

17 posts / 0 new

Mr. President on 11/28/2011 you said there were limits to what you could legally do to extend provisions of the "Dream Act" with out legislative action. What has changed other than the politics?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Comments

What I don't get about what the President said this morning, that young people brought here illegally would not be deported for now, is how this would impact their parents when the young people come forward and admit they are illegal. In other words, illegals that are under the radar, ie: undetected, will now be exposed when their kids come forward to admit they are illegal. Will the parents then be deported? Will the youngsters hesitate to come forward because it will expose their parents as illegals?

Is this a sneaky way to find illegals? Or a way to eventually give all illegals a path to citizenship because, if the youngsters are allowed to stay, I don't see how the parents could then be deported and break up the family. This would especially be a horror for the parents if the mother was pregnant when she came here and now, all of a sudden, her 20 or 30 year old is allow to stay but she's in danger of being deported. This possible senario was not addressed by Obama this morning.

Nancy

radio fan
Joined:
Jan. 12, 2011 8:51 pm

I agree Nancy. There are many unanswered questions and unfortunately both sides are putting politics ahead of people's lives in this election year. I'll be glad when it is over, one way or the other.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

This is a despicable act by a desperate man.

What about the American worker..doesnt he give a damn about them anymore ?

Lets see.. 14 to 20 million unemployed .... every year the corporate owned government allows 2 to 3 million new working age people into the country to compete for fewer and fewer jobs. Hey heres a good idea lets add 2 Million more workers to the list with a swipe of my unconstitutional pen.

Yeah .. My wife and I are gonna vote for this guy again ?

ComplexNumbers's picture
ComplexNumbers
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2011 10:48 am

No, your complexity delusions will probably make you think that Mittaid is a tall cool drink that will be good for you rather than more of that GOPimp Kockacola that has already made you sick and confused.

I think there is a legitimate concern about the INS and parents of eligible college students, but that could be covered by amnesty better than not. There is no reason to go after these people if they have not exposed themselves by criminality. Get over it.

There would be plenty of jobs were we running a responsible domestic economy as the Left does and the Right does not. They would be legal jobs too, not subject to employer abuse and off the books wage theft.

But, if you find this act by Obama so descpicable, how do you like the BAIN record? Go ahead and vote for more of that meth.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Deport all of the illegals to include the anchor babies. illegal is illegal if been here since just after birth or not, the whole illegal family can come forward or they can be sent home individually.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

We should take the same view on all crime. If you kill some one And live a good law obeying life for a few years we should just let you go. You have been good since you killed that guy or robbed thst bank so your good.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote ComplexNumbers:

Lets see.. 14 to 20 million unemployed .... every year the corporate owned government allows 2 to 3 million new working age people into the country to compete for fewer and fewer jobs.

Even though I am a Democrat and Obama supporter, I don't support this either. The reason is simple. I don't see much difference between importing millions of new unskilled workers each year versus sending jobs to China. The net-net in each case is less jobs for those Americans who are here. Bringing in millions on millions of unskilled workers each year into an economy that's shedding unskilled jobs over time is economic suicide. We don't need more unskilled workers. It's importing poverty. No wonder taxpayer supported social programs everywhere are imploding.

I don't see how any Democrat can support continued massive immigration of unskilled workers and then turn around and oppose sending working class jobs to China. Same thing to me.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

These kids are getting screwed. They're getting screwed by those on the right who insist that NOONE gets amnesty, and they're getting screwed by those on the left who insist that EVERYONE gets amnesty.

The status quo, what we have today, is DE FACTO amnesty. There are American citizens born after 1986 who are 25 years old now. They can get legal immigration status for their parents, brothers, sisters, maybe some extended family members.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's no secret that many U.S. employers want to cheat the system. They employ illegals because they are dirt cheap. So what happens when we legalize the illegals? Will these companies suddenly start playing by the rules? I don't think so Tim. The new legal residents will be out of work. If a company demanded illegal labor before amnesty, they will demand illegal labor after amnesty. Why would they change?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

This proposal does nothing about illegal employers, but it does give humane relief to the victims of our immoral policies and hypocritical laws about immigration and workers.

I find the objecters to these human beings to be callous and blind to the humanity of the people involved. They are not taking American jobs because "we" have not done anything to prevent the under the table, low-wage "illegal" employment market from doing business. They are serving a part of our normal way of doing business, and the people who come to serve this part of our American business play are often great people who show all the values our cons say they admire. Nothing about the Obama proposal applies to anyone who has not played it very straight and done well.

If we want to end illegal employment, go after the employers. It might mean calling some rich Republicans scum instead of treating the children of these workers like shit. I can live with that.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I think we can agree that the forum mirrors the country with a variety of views ranging from the absolutist black/white legal/illegal to some mix of compassion/practicality. My own views aside I am more interested in the subtle acquiescence of progressives/liberals to what I consider a power grab by the Executive when the scales tip to the side of an issue, immigration, that they happen to favor.

In many cases these are the same groups that, quite rightly IMO, bemoaned the power grabs of G.W.B., and the subsequent attacks on personal freedom from the Patriot Act by the legislature.

I don't think this use of Executive power is as egregious as killing American citizens without a trial but I find it disturbing none the less.

To be fair there have been a few critical voices on the Left: "While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future."- Jonathan Hurley. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/18/obama-administration-declares-no-po...

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

We should take the same view on all crime. If you kill some one And live a good law obeying life for a few years we should just let you go. You have been good since you killed that guy or robbed thst bank so your good.

Those weren't my words. Those were the words of President Ronald Reagan when he supported legislation that provided amnesty for 3 million illegals. More proof of how far to the right the Republican party has wandered.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I'm sorry but the presidents order changes nothing if taken literally because he said he would deport the criminal element. Well they are all criminals so no one stays!

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote chilidog:

The status quo, what we have today, is DE FACTO amnesty. There are American citizens born after 1986 who are 25 years old now. They can get legal immigration status for their parents, brothers, sisters, maybe some extended family members.

Holy crap I just learned something new - Simpson-Mazzoli only applied to persons who entered before 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson-Mazzoli_Bill

So we have had rolling De Facto amnesty since at least 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification

"Citizens and permanent residents of the United States may sponsor relatives for immigration to the United States in a variety of ways. Citizens of any age may sponsor their heterosexual spouses and their children, but only citizens who have reached the age of 21 may sponsor siblings and parents. Permanent residents may only sponsor spouses and unmarried children. In all cases, the sponsor must demonstrate the capacity to support their relative financially at 125% of poverty level, and provide proof of the relationship. Immediate relatives of United States citizens (spouses, parents, and unmarried children under 21 years of age) are automatically eligible to immigrate upon approval of their application. All other people eligible to immigrate through a family member must wait for a place; a preference system governs the order at which these places become available. Citizens may only sponsor siblings, spouses, parents, and children. They cannot sponsor aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, grandparents, or grandchildren, though in some cases such relations may enjoy derivative status."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nice speech at Orlando Mr. President. You still didn't answer why you didn't push the "Dream Act" your first 1-1/2 years in office.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system