President Obama is taking a more compassionate approach to immigration

60 posts / 0 new

Despite being tougher on undocumented immigrants than any administration in recent history – President Obama has instructed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to stop deporting young undocumented immigrants who have a job and were bought to this country as a child.

According to the new policy, if someone is under 30-years-old, brought to the country before they were 16, been here for five continuous years with no criminal background, and graduated high school or served in the military, they will be immune from deportation. This new policy mirrors the DREAM Act, which has been stalled in Congress by Republicans who favor mass deportations over common sense, compassionate immigration reform. An estimated 800,000 young undocumented immigrants will benefit from this policy change.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

B.S. He is just trying to buy more votes.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 5:49 am

Yoi mean trying to unconstitutionaly implement amnesty.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Yoi mean trying to unconstitutionaly implement amnesty.

Nobody accused Reagan or Bush for doing the same thing of being unconstitutional.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

DI'd the do it by executive order or sponsored bill?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Plus side to this.

1. They generally will work for less allowing corporations to make more money for their shareholders.

2. They don't unionize.

3. They will have to pay into SS that they probably will never collect.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 5:49 am

DAmn, is Obama trying to obtain votes by his change in immigration enforcement policies? What a terrible sin. Politicians ought to do what is right damn the torpedos and take the consequences for honesty and candor. Really!

What I remember is that Rick Perry's only smart and compassionate remark got him kneecapped by some really stupid and ugly racist idiots. Why we would not want the children of illegal immigrants who have grown up in America and done well in school and community not to become Americans with full citizenship eludes me. Where are they supposed to be "at home" and not "alien?" Why would we want to keep some of the best people out of the family?

For all their economic grievance, the Tea Partiers are ready to waste tons of cash on fences and prisons instead of realizing the positive returns on a good investment in human beings. It turns out they really are about the hate more than the money.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

DI'd the do it by executive order or sponsored bill?

I don't think it is either. It's an administration policy. That means the next administration can change it. Reagan did it as a bill signed into law.

Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones — it was part of his understanding of America — that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

"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," he said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2811588/posts

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

If the conservatards are so concerned about this, why didn't they do a damn thing about it before Obama was elected?

Oh wait, like everything else, the policies of Republicans create the problems they cry about the loudest.

Stop enforcing immigration laws, and then when a Democrat gets elected scream about immigrants.

Stop enforcing banking laws, scream and cry like their diapers are full, when the banks implode, and blame it on liberals.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

If the conservatards are so concerned about this, why didn't they do a damn thing about it before Obama was elected?

Because unfortunately, Bush was a "social" conservative.... Apparently that means you like illegals. Considering all the issues of the time.. Illegals were unfortunately low on the list. THAT is why..

Stop enforcing immigration laws, and then when a Democrat gets elected scream about immigrants

Bush NEVER stopped enforcing, He ended the Clinton Catch and release policy. So yes, So when Obama bends us over and Backdoor amnesty's the American People for political pandering on an election he's clearly going to loose. I feel very comforable screaming about Judist Democrats and thier Bullshit policies.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm

It's UNconstitutional to do this by executive order wether it's right or wrong!

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Amazingly dehumanized and ugly rhetoric about a sensible and compassionate move. Family integrity would also be a good thing to respect while rewarding good behavior. The "illegal" immigrants are only the symptoms of illegal employers, not some competition with American labor in a well-regulated economy. This issue is flogged to bring out the racism and bring down the social vision or compassion regional sensitivity ought to encourage. Conservative hypocrisy again. Borders ought to be able to be porous because they ought not define wealth v. poverty or slavery v. freedom. Unless they are resolved, these divides will always be exploited with grave ugliness.

These are real human beings who have lived as Americans well and been good neighbors. They have paid a lot of taxes and have sought few or no benefits as "illegals." Few of them came here other than from want and need, with a mix of ambition and courage to do so. They have worked hard, and played by a hard set of rules outside "the rules." The result of their hard work and integrity is their successful American children who need to be recognized as such.

We could also honor them by ending labor arbitrage and working to make Mexico more like Canada.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Phaedrus76:

If the conservatards are so concerned about this, why didn't they do a damn thing about it before Obama was elected?

Because unfortunately, Bush was a "social" conservative.... Apparently that means you like illegals. Considering all the issues of the time.. Illegals were unfortunately low on the list. THAT is why..

Stop enforcing immigration laws, and then when a Democrat gets elected scream about immigrants

Bush NEVER stopped enforcing, He ended the Clinton Catch and release policy. So yes, So when Obama bends us over and Backdoor amnesty's the American People for political pandering on an election he's clearly going to loose. I feel very comforable screaming about Judist Democrats and thier Bullshit policies.

There is no amnesty here. These people, age 30 and under have to apply for "deferment" every two years. That means if they break any laws they won't be afforded deferment and out the door they go. Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years. You are so full of crap I can't believe you don't gag on your own feces. This is exactly what the Republicans really want although they'll never admit it. They want "field workers" (slaves) and be able to show that they're against illegal immigrants at the same time. Win win for them.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

It's UNconstitutional to do this by executive order wether it's right or wrong!

Show me where in the Constitution it says this.

You know it's unconstitutional to arrest somebody for screaming fire in a crowded building when there is no fire whether it's right or wrong.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

It is a great thing he did. Now I can break into a nicer home than my current one and live in it (undocumented renter), rob banks (undocumented withdrawals) and my kids can benefit from my acts. This ruling is a spit in the face to all immigrants who did it the legal way!

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 3:04 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

There is no amnesty here. These people, age 30 and under have to apply for "deferment" every two years.

Let be clear... You haven't the foggest clue what it "IS".. Since he just announced it. Whether it is Amnesty, Semi-amensty, Partial Amnesty... It "IS" however a Pardon of a crime. The crime of being illegal.

has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

Have you ever considered that is because there are a shit load more of them crossing the border to kneel at the feet the Messiah who will lead them to the promiseland.

Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

Are you saying that ICE was ordered to NOT do there Job during the Bush years and then ordered to do thier Job when Obama took office..... Or are there just more illegals that you ever suspected.

This is exactly what the Republicans really want although they'll never admit it.

You want to know the reason why? Because you are full of shit. First, the story was regarding the "RATE" of deprotation. Not Total deportation. If it were Total.... Bush wins DUH...

Just the quick numbers I come up with is 2003-2008 1.37M. Not his entire 8 years.

2009-2011 1.17M

It is impressive... But NOT "Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years."

In case you are wondering that is FACTUALLY FALSE.. Try not to use it again...

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

There is no amnesty here. These people, age 30 and under have to apply for "deferment" every two years.

Let be clear... You haven't the foggest clue what it "IS".. Since he just announced it. Whether it is Amnesty, Semi-amensty, Partial Amnesty... It "IS" however a Pardon of a crime. The crime of being illegal.

has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

Have you ever considered that is because there are a shit load more of them crossing the border to kneel at the feet the Messiah who will lead them to the promiseland.

Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

Are you saying that ICE was ordered to NOT do there Job during the Bush years and then ordered to do thier Job when Obama took office..... Or are there just more illegals that you ever suspected.

This is exactly what the Republicans really want although they'll never admit it.

You want to know the reason why? Because you are full of shit. First, the story was regarding the "RATE" of deprotation. Not Total deportation. If it were Total.... Bush wins DUH...

Just the quick numbers I come up with is 2003-2008 1.37M. Not his entire 8 years.

2009-2011 1.17M

It is impressive... But NOT "Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did in his entire 8 years."

In case you are wondering that is FACTUALLY FALSE.. Try not to use it again...

First of all, I'll use whatever the hell I want to on this site. Second of all I meant to say that he's "on pace" to deport more illegals in his first term than Bush did in two terms.

Next, illegal immigration has slowed down a lot due to the poor economy, so don't go telling me that there's more illegals to catch now than there was 4 years ago.

ICE is actually doing things better than they did under Bush. They've changed their priorities and are more successful because of it.

Last but not least I do know what it IS and it isn't amnesty. I got that information from the world renounded leader in truth and honesty known as Fox news. Now go watch some Rachel Maddow and pull your hair out.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Once again, the Left got punked. Conservatives play chess thinking several moves ahead while the Progressive are playing checkers.

When Obama came out with his backdoor amnesty for ILLEGAL alien immigrants (people that broke the law), NOT legal immigrants I kind of laughed. He may get a bump in the short term from the Latino voter but will be DOOMED going into November election. We all agree that the Legislative & Judicial Branch had nothing to do with this and Obama acted unilaterally (through as Thom said a "rule" change)?

Yeah for Obama and the poor downtrodden ILLEGAL immigrant...

Now let me tell you what the real cost is going to be. Anyone remember Dukakis and Willie Horton add?

Everytime a woman is raped by illegal immigrant = Obama's fault for amnesty

Everytime a person is killed by drunken illegal immigrant = Obama's fault for amnesty

Everytime there is a drug crime commited by illegal immigrants = Obama's fault for amensty

The cost of education for illegal immigrants and high property taxes = Obama's fault for amnesty

The cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants (roughly 17% of prison population) = Obama's fault

Good JOB left! Its like watching a circular firing squad. Way to win the battle and LOSE the war!

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm

Reagan, Bush, and Rick Perry were cocksuckers who stuck it to the working class every chance they got, but for some reason their approach to illegal immigration is "saintly." Give me a fucking break.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital.0:

Bush NEVER stopped enforcing

"Yesterday Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office told a House panel that under the Bush administration workplace enforcement of immigration violations had fallen sharply. For instance, consider the numbers of employers who received formal letters warning about possible fines for violating immigration laws:

Under Clinton in 1999: 417 employers
Under Bush in 2003: 3 employers"

http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/2005/06/22/01:45.pm

Of course Michelle Malkin is a pinko liberal America-hater.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Naturalization is a given power of congress in article 1 there is no power of naturalization given in article 2

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

I love the unrelieved con hypocrisy on "illegal immigration." Like abortion, if anyone actually does anything to settle the issue, their hypsters lose an empty hot button scare and deflect asset. They will never do anything to end illegal employment, and all the money spent on border security goes to the security demographics of conservative infrastructure.

In their larger White Fear of losing America meme, making the "illegal immigrant" the one who takes jobs from real Americans and who threatens to pollute us with crime and tacos plays well. But, it makes the Latino vote into a replay of the Black vote in the coming election. For those who think Obama's proposal is a cynical play for the Latino vote, I guess the question is what do you mean by cynical?

It is the responsibility of Congress, not the White House, to get the law sorted out. He has given Congress two years while he avoids deporting these kids. What about the parents of these kids? There are questions left to resolve even in the immediate aftermath. But, the real urgency is to get this red herring dealt with so the human beings involved can get what they deserve. For the illegal employers, I would suggest that this could include hard time. For the abused workers who came here for opportunity, I would hope that amnesty could begin to repay the debt we owe them for allowing this injustice for so long. Cons ought to be embarassed by this beating up on the slaves while they let the slavers go.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

It's against the law it's not white fear I don't want any illegalCanadians or Russians cause its illegal!

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Yeah, and when slavery was legal you had to send back the escaped slaves. Gotta' love the law when the institutionalized illegal employer stuff is ignored by your side. Your legal branding of actual human beings is at least morally ignorant if not ugly. Punishing the pawns in the game is a cowardly response.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:First of all, I'll use whatever the hell I want to on this site.

Hey... Use lies and falsehoods at you own peril.

Second of all I meant to say that he's "on pace" to deport more illegals in his first term than Bush did in two terms

Word unfortunatly mean things...

Next, illegal immigration has slowed down a lot due to the poor economy, so don't go telling me that there's more illegals to catch now than there was 4 years ago.

Obama Administration Sets Deportation Record

The percentage of immigrants removed who were convicted of crimes has been rising since 2007, according to figures from ICE. In 2007, about 35 percent of those deported were convicted of crimes.

"What you're seeing each year is a bettering of what they're targeting and their own prioritization, in terms of their removals," said Michelle Mittelstadt of Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that tracks immigration. "Increasingly a larger share of overall removals are people who have felony or misdemeanor records. You've seen a steady uptick since 2007."

ICE is actually doing things better than they did under Bush. They've changed their priorities and are more successful because of it.

Not according to the Story... Illegals are getting convicted more. If you think ICE is doing better under Obama Leadership. Show me a policy he enacted the shows this numbers are due to his leadership. Cause does not equal effect.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm

Have you seen how every other country in the world keeps its borders? Even Mexico takes border security moreseriously than we do. This is an issue of national sovergnty not made up human rights.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote chilidog:

"Yesterday Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office told a House panel that under the Bush administration workplace enforcement of immigration violations had fallen sharply. For instance, consider the numbers of employers who received formal letters warning about possible fines for violating immigration laws:

Under Clinton in 1999: 417 employers
Under Bush in 2003: 3 employers"

One wonders why you choose to not post the next sentence. "In part this is certainly due to more focus on the border and on possible terrorism" Golly.. I wonder what was going on that made the adminstration refocus on border security...

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm

So if it's legal for Obama to do this byexecutive order will it be legal for Romney to throw them all out by executive order?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

I will play devil's advocate...

Once the KING signs his executive order making them citizens they are bestowed rights as US citizens and under the US Constitution and statues they would be protected and afforded due process.

Its like the roach motel, they check in but they never leave

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm

But if theliking can give them citizenship can't he take it away?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Thomas Jefferson said it BEST,

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."


Why give them MORE power?

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote chilidog:

"Yesterday Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office told a House panel that under the Bush administration workplace enforcement of immigration violations had fallen sharply. For instance, consider the numbers of employers who received formal letters warning about possible fines for violating immigration laws:

Under Clinton in 1999: 417 employers
Under Bush in 2003: 3 employers"

One wonders why you choose to not post the next sentence. "In part this is certainly due to more focus on the border and on possible terrorism" Golly.. I wonder what was going on that made the adminstration refocus on border security...

Keep telling yourself that. And tell Michell Malkin, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, George Putnam, et al., that. Let me know what they say.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It's not an executive order. Exec orders are signed by the president. This is prosecutorial discretion, a policy issued by Janet Napolitano, and signed by her. Any hispanic support for Romney falling below 35% means republicans lose, checkmate. They still have the option of the state governors purging American voters that are not white, male, and nra members. Probably go to SCOTUS, probably riots, probably koch army, and blackwater, and texas and arizona guard, but it's only mexicans, and women, and blacks. Worked in 2000.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What state do You live in?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

I get the "prosecutorial discretion." I even support it, AS PART OF a larger comprehensive resolution to the immigration problem. I don't get, or rather, I am disgusted by the fanfare accompanying the announcement of the policy. And isn't the whole work permit arrangement a function of the State Department? I haven't heard Clinton's name brought up in this.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

Thomas Jefferson said it BEST,

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."


Why give them MORE power?

Government has no more power than it did from it's inception. Whenever there is new legislation it is a voted on decision to implement the power that they already have. The power never changes, it's the implementation of power that changes. The nice thing about a "democratic" government is that it can never take away everything you have unless you allow it. A DICTATORSHIP big enough to give you everything you need, is a DICTATORSHIP big enough to take away everything you have.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

What state do You live in?

FL is my US address.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Then can't understand how it istoo live on a border state.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

I normally come down on the lib side of things, but I side with the cons on this one.....I guess I don't understand how further incentivizing illegal immigration helps our middle class economy. How do adding more worker bees to the mix help when we have tons of unemployed worker bees already? How does it help unions' efforts to raise wages, especially in the trades? I don't see how someone can vehemently oppose offshoring working class jobs, yet favore more and more workers immigrating into the U.S. The net-net for both, to me, is more workers chasing less jobs.

My belief is it just helps big business drive working class wages down. That's why many big business lobby organizations support loosened immigraton laws. The US Chamber of Commerce, National Restaurant Association, Associated General Contractors of America, National Association of Homebuilders, not to mention Big Ag all support looser immigration laws for one reason - they want an unending supply of nameless, faceless, unskilled, disposable labor. Not to mention taxpayers foot the bill for some of the benefits, offloading that from the business income statement. In my view, it's importing poverty.

GOP benefactors get cheap labor, Democrats get the votes. Just another case of both parties screwing us. I guess Obama has done the political calculations and it will benefit him in Novermber, but will alienate centrist working class whites who like me don't get it.

And before anyone suggests racism, I'd feel the same way if we had millions of unskilled white guys named Gert, coming in from Holland, taking working class jobs. It's economic, not racial.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There are so many components to this problem. The immediate task, IMO, is that we have to do SOMETHING. I used to be more hardline on this issue, going back to 1986. At this point I will settle for 98% amnesty. I just pull that number out of my butt, I think I learned in statistics classes that in all populations 98% fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. La Raza says there are 11 million illegal aliens here, allocate 10.8 million green cards, allocate enough resources in new courtrooms, judges, attorneys, etc to identify and process the remainder, plus the inevitable future flood of new entrants, and let's move forward.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

So we just over look their criminal actions.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

So we just over look their criminal actions.

Nobody's criminal actions are overlooked. Being in this country illegally is about as criminal as jay walking. Illegal aliens are subject to all of our laws just like the rest of us. They can't vote or own a firearm and that's about the only difference.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Obviously they are not subject to all our laws. Also I don't pay criminals hundreds of dollars and plan for months every time I jay walk.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

I would point out, we overlook criminal actions all the time. As you point out yourself, jay walking is a criminal activity that is rarely enforced. Even, when caught many criminal activities are ignored. People get police warnings all the time; the list could go on.

I would much rather the President go through the proper channels to pass the Dream Act, and I do think this is an inappropriate use of prerogative power to suspend the law, never the less I am not sure simply saying we need to enforce every single law blindly is the best way to attack this.

Wyattbw09's picture
Wyattbw09
Joined:
Jun. 20, 2012 6:37 am

No but if he continues with this he is eligible for empeachment.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Then can't understand how it istoo live on a border state.

Have you looked at a map lately? Florida has people coming ashore all the time.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote al3:

I normally come down on the lib side of things, but I side with the cons on this one.....I guess I don't understand how further incentivizing illegal immigration helps our middle class economy. How do adding more worker bees to the mix help when we have tons of unemployed worker bees already? How does it help unions' efforts to raise wages, especially in the trades? I don't see how someone can vehemently oppose offshoring working class jobs, yet favore more and more workers immigrating into the U.S. The net-net for both, to me, is more workers chasing less jobs.

My belief is it just helps big business drive working class wages down. That's why many big business lobby organizations support loosened immigraton laws. The US Chamber of Commerce, National Restaurant Association, Associated General Contractors of America, National Association of Homebuilders, not to mention Big Ag all support looser immigration laws for one reason - they want an unending supply of nameless, faceless, unskilled, disposable labor. Not to mention taxpayers foot the bill for some of the benefits, offloading that from the business income statement. In my view, it's importing poverty.

GOP benefactors get cheap labor, Democrats get the votes. Just another case of both parties screwing us. I guess Obama has done the political calculations and it will benefit him in Novermber, but will alienate centrist working class whites who like me don't get it.

And before anyone suggests racism, I'd feel the same way if we had millions of unskilled white guys named Gert, coming in from Holland, taking working class jobs. It's economic, not racial.

Read a labor correspondent's perspective before you state how labor feels about it.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

So we just over look their criminal actions.

I'm guessing you weren't even born in 1986. This illegal immigration problem has its roots at least as far back as 1982, when Mexico devalued the peso. I don't know enough about those circumstances to know whether or not Reagan could have intervened, or if the problem somehow fortuitiously allowed a whole bunch of cheap labor to come here...

The GOP has always squawked hawkish on illegal immigration. But just like abortion, they do nothing about it, they just like having the issue.

Consider this: the GOP has the House of Representatives with a Democratic Senate and President. They can pass the most severe anti-illegal immigration bill they can dream of, if only for political theater, because it will go nowhere. Yet they don't.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I dont

Care what race you are if you sneak in to this country u are a crimInal and should be deported

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Georgia is going to allow peaches to rot in their trees due to labor shortage, according to a GA representative.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Read a labor correspondent's perspective before you state how labor feels about it.

I'll give the writer this: he appears to suffer from A.D.D. as much as Thom does!

But Thom also generally provides at least some evidence, maybe cite a source or two.

"The test is whether he stands for equality and the rights of all workers and their families."

Guilty as charged. I don't stand for rights of workers in Mexico, Egypt, Vietnam, etc. We allow some of these workers to come here and help the U.S.A. prosper. We can't let them all in, or else we'd BE Mexico, Egypt, Vietnam, etc.

And you can be damned sure George W. Bush did not "stand for equality and the rights of all workers and their families."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system