Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Might Introduce Immigration Bill  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1309 times:

Note: I had to shorten the title to make it fit:

Kind of interesting political gambit:

Quote:

"If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away," Obama said to applause from students at Del Sol High School.

Ref: Obama: I’ll introduce my own immigration bill if Congress doesn’t move

Wonder why he hasn't resorted to this on other fronts such as gun control.

I imagine it means he feels an immigration bill of some sort is certain to pass and he wants to be seen as being ahead of Congress, not behind.

The main features would be:

Quote:

In his speech, Obama laid out "markers" for reform, saying any comprehensive immigration bill must give most of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to earn their citizenship gradually if they pay a fine, learn English and pass a background check. Immigrants would also have to get to "the back of the line," which means people who have already applied for green cards would have their applications processed first.

The president's bill would also include an employment verification system, more border security and a revamping of the legal immigration system to provide more visas for top graduates of U.S. universities and to reduce lengthy wait times for visas for relatives of U.S. citizens.

The main area of contention is:

Quote:

... the senators' bill includes a spate of border security requirements that must go into effect before the immigrants are eligible for green cards. Rubio said on Tuesday that he will not sign onto a bill that does not include these border enforcement triggers.

The GOP can't miss an opportunity to pour more money into weaponizing the issue, gotta get the NRA crowd on board. One reason we have a lot of the problems we have is that the Border Patrol is already soaking up tons of money (it's the largest US government police agency by far) and it's not going to ever be feasible to chase down every person who wants to enter the US illegally. The best way is to audit employers strictly so there's no good jobs for illegals to come pursue.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Wonder why he hasn't resorted to this on other fronts such as gun control.

I think this issue has a bit more bi-partisan support. Do not want to start the 9 millionth gun debate on this forum, it's getting really old, so I'll leave it at that.


I've been extremely busy the last week, so I'm a bit out of the loop. Why has this issue all of the sudden become priority #1 that we need to pass? I mean I think we've all agreed we needed something for a while now, what has magically changed? It just seems so urgent out of the blue.


And what is going to happen to those cheap cheap cheap jobs illegal aliens hold now? While I agree we need to crack down on illegal immigration, we NEED a program in place to pay immigrants dirt cheap wages (which are very decent when shipped back home) or we're gonna have a lot of unintended consequences (that are so obvious yet no one seems to mention for some reason)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1258 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
Why has this issue all of the sudden become priority #1 that we need to pass?

Two reasons -

1) The Democrats are feeling that the 'crisis' issues are past and this is a good time to take up immigration; and

2) The Republicans are realizing their party (and the Tea Party Movement) is only going to lose more and more elections if they don't find a way to pass an immigration bill seen as friendly to Hispanics. The discussions at their national meeting were very clear - the old hardline anti-immigration stance is hurting the party significantly. While it appears to a small core of the party - that group isn't as important for the future and finding a way to court Hispanic votes.

The reality is that in general Hispanics tend to be more conservative and aligned with Republican Party family values issues; however, the hardliine argument is keeping a huge voting block from helping put Republicans in elected offices across the nation.

Actually a third reason - there is nothing 'huge' in the news this week, so it is a good time to bring up a complex issue like immigration reform.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
The Republicans are realizing their party (and the Tea Party Movement) is only going to lose more and more elections if they don't find a way to pass an immigration bill seen as friendly to Hispanics.

Why only Hispanics? 40% of the ~12 million illegals in the country come from all over the world, most with visas, who simply did not go back when their visa ran out.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
The discussions at their national meeting were very clear - the old hardline anti-immigration stance is hurting the party significantly.

I have not heard of anyone being anti-immigrant. Except maybe the American Indian Movement, who have an issue with all immigrants over the past several hundred years.

Or are you perpetuating the propaganda that being anti-ILLEGAL-immigration is the same as being anti-immigration?

Back to the subject:

I have no problem with giving all the illegals (non-criminal ones anyway) residency status, on a one-time basis (say, everyone here on 1/1/2013), if the borders are better secured. By better secured, that means we follow through with the law - if you don't belong here, you are on the first plane out of the country (not just a bus to the border), and that means everyone. The Obama administration has policies in place where the only people deported are violent criminals - everyone else is let go.

But absolutely no on a "path to citizenship". That is just a poke in the eye to the millions of people who have immigrated legally, or are trying to.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21098 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1233 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
The Obama administration has policies in place where the only people deported are violent criminals - everyone else is let go.

That's just a reflection of the need to prioritize given the limited resources of the INS (or whatever it's called these days). We should absolutely be using our resources to deport those who are violent criminals first before going after those who are keeping their heads down and working hard.

One-time residency would only improve that, since the people who were here and being productive members of society won't even be on the radar anymore, leaving the government more resources to go after the people who do need to be sent away.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Wonder why he hasn't resorted to this on other fronts

Because the president can't introduce a bill into congress. He can only recommend that congress take up an action.

From the Constitution (Article 2, Section 3):

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

My favorite line from the linked article:

"If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away," Obama said to applause from students at Del Sol High School.

And, just like the budgets he's sent up, The Congress should shoot it down. And, unlike the budget, The Congress should get down to business and draft a responsible bill that addresses the issues. I understand that Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner are insisting that this bill (when it hits the floor(s) be considered in "regular order". Meaning, that the bill will be presented, debated and amended with no (or realistically, limited) back-room deals.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
One reason we have a lot of the problems we have is that the Border Patrol is already soaking up tons of money (it's the largest US government police agency by far)

Not even close. In fact, if you cut ICE away from the DHS, I'm guessing they drop out of the top 10.

http://govcentral.monster.com/careers/articles/402

Old numbers. Maybe someone more research savvy can come up with more current numbers.

I read somewhere, and I can't find it now, that the biggest payroll is the HHS. I guess I can understand that.

As for an immigration bill: unless there is a separate bill that secures the border and puts real teeth into fight ILLEGAL immigration, any other bill should be a non-starter.

I'd also like to see a path to legal status. Not a new path to citizenship, but legal status. I'd like to see some kind of penalty for breaking the law (not jail time). I'd like to see criminals (all crimes above misdemeanor) deported. I'd like to see a requirement that these newly minted "legal status holders" be required to learn English (maybe make English the official language?) If these folks do choose a path to citizenship, they go to the back of the line.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The GOP can't miss an opportunity to pour more money into weaponizing the issue, gotta get the NRA crowd on board. One reason we have a lot of the problems we have is that the Border Patrol is already soaking up tons of money (it's the largest US government police agency by far) and it's not going to ever be feasible to chase down every person who wants to enter the US illegally. The best way is to audit employers strictly so there's no good jobs for illegals to come pursue.

Broadly speaking, I agree with the above. The GOP-NRA link being a big factor.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
I've been extremely busy the last week, so I'm a bit out of the loop. Why has this issue all of the sudden become priority #1 that we need to pass?
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
1) The Democrats are feeling that the 'crisis' issues are past and this is a good time to take up immigration; and

2) The Republicans are realizing their party (and the Tea Party Movement) is only going to lose more and more elections if they don't find a way to pass an immigration bill seen as friendly to Hispanics.

I think points well made. Also, as an entity, I think Congress realises the disgust the American electorate has for it, it's understood that something has to happen on the immigration file, so a certain amount of bi-partisanship is good PR for Congress.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
The GOP-NRA link being a big factor.

What the H does the NRA have to do with this???



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1155 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
2) The Republicans are realizing their party (and the Tea Party Movement) is only going to lose more and more elections if they don't find a way to pass an immigration bill seen as friendly to Hispanics.

Aye, there's the rub.

This is really a political game (and that's fine. Politics is what these folks do for a living.) Basically, Mr. Obama is laying down the gauntlet: either you come up with a reasonable bipartisan immigration bill that I can sign in good conscience, or I am going to make you do the public obstructionist game and that will absolutely kill your chances of winning future elections by alienating Latino voters.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):

Why only Hispanics? 40% of the ~12 million illegals in the country come from all over the world, most with visas, who simply did not go back when their visa ran out.

They can lose those votes from those ethnic groups, too.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
By better secured, that means we follow through with the law - if you don't belong here, you are on the first plane out of the country (not just a bus to the border), and that means everyone. The Obama administration has policies in place where the only people deported are violent criminals - everyone else is let go.

And he's deported more illegals than any recent President. But for a so-called "conservative" you sure seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of federal dollars on building fences that can simply be tunneled under/boated around/flown over and mass deportation schemes that will rival the entire DOD budget in scale.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):

What the H does the NRA have to do with this???

Because the NRA is now the new (really old) bogey man. If the GOP takes any position that involves guns or ***gasp*** enforcement, then the NRA is behind it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Mr. Obama is laying down the gauntlet:

I'll be interested to see Mr. Obama's "bill". This president is not a "bringer togetherer". He is partisan. He is ideological. And, he likes the turmoil. My guess is that his "bill" doesn't adequately secure the border because he knows that will be a deal breaker. Then, he can point to the GOP and cry how unreasonable they are.

In fact, my stand is that before any bill is debated on the normalization of illegal immigrants, we need a bill that secures the border. A bill with teeth. We need a fence, both physical and virtual. We need more boots working in enforcement and we need to deport the folks who are actively breaking our laws, i.e. felons.

Then we can talk about the folks that we would like to stay in the US and allow legal status. It seems some folks forget...we (the US) gets to choose who stays and who goes, not the individual that broke our laws to get into the country.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1123 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
This president is not a "bringer togetherer". He is partisan.

He tried at the beginning of his first term and then after the midterm elections. The GOP explicitly said: "We won't play. We want the President to fail."

so he tried the non-partisan, unifier approach for a bit over a year and it was, as predicted, a dismal failure. The GOP blocked and filibustered any legislation, including their own on at least one occasion. And then, he decided to step up and start fighting.

Now, emboldened by high popularity ratings and a blistering sting of an election for his opponents, he has become very partisan. He doesn't need to win any more elections. He has nothing to lose. And if the opposition is going to be obstinant and defiant whether he tries to unify or play hardball, then what does he have to lose?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
And he's deported more illegals than any recent President.

Swallowing the party line hook line and sinker, I see. This is 100% a LIE.

Here are the latest figures available.

http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2011-3

You have two kinds of deportations:

"Removals" are the compulsory and confirmed deportation of an inadmissible alien out of the US based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal. i.e. if he shows up at a legal border crossing, he is immediately red-flagged.

“Returns" are the confirmed deportation of an inadmissible alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. The vast majority of these are Mexicans caught on the border, put on a bus and sent back. There are few if any administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry.

What the Obama administration has done is to reclassify many Returns as Removals in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of Removals. Specifically, those illegals caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they’re returned are being dishonestly counted as Removals. The point of this Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) is to disrupt smuggling networks and make it harder to just keep crossing until you get through. But they’re still just returns, without any “administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry.” This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 150,000 in the past two years.

The facts, if you open up Table 39 of the link I posted above:

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fil...immigration-statistics/table39.xls

- Total deportations during Bush: 10.3 million, or on average 1.3 million per year.

- Total deportations during Obama's first 3 years: 2.55 million, or on average 0.85 million per year. In the last data year, he deported only 715K in all - the trend is sharply downward every year. So unless he deported some 8 million people just in 2012, your fabrication is exposed right there.

- Due to policies established by the Obama Administration, Returns are down precipitously - fewer border jumpers were sent back in 2011 than in any year since 1970, and is less than a third of returns in any year during GW Bush's administration. The Border Patrol is under orders to let people in a lot easier than ever before - so much so that there are a bunch of lawsuits by Border Patrol and ICE employees and offices suing because they are not allowed to do their jobs.

- While "Removals" are at a record high, that is due to ATEP (started during the Bush Administration). Actual, true "Removals", once correcting for ATEP, is trending at about 300K per year - virtually the same as under Bush.

Those are the facts. Obama intentionally stopped much of the enforcement on the border (which was already a sieve). The question you should asking is "why?"



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Why only Hispanics? 40% of the ~12 million illegals in

The US population is about 15% Hispanic ( over 47 millio ) (vs Blacks being about 13%).

Legal Hispanic voters are a larger voting block than Blacks. The Republican Party attracts more Black voters in recent elections than they have Hispanic voters according to many sources.

It's not about helping or removing illegals. The issue is how to attract Hispanic votes.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Or are you perpetuating the propaganda that being anti-ILLEGAL-immigration is the same as being anti-immigration?

Surveys show the Hispanic community very STRONGLY believes anti-illegal laws are very much anti-Hispanic in intent, and in enforcement. They are very opposed to what they see as illegal stop and search of Hispanics based solely on their race and the perception that they are targeted.

A major issue in the Hispanic community is the deportation of illegal parents of children who are legal US citizens. The Obama administration has stepped up deportations, but when Hispanics hear anchor-baby arguments from Republican candidates - they do not like the message.

Attempts to remove thousands of legal Hispanic voters from the voting registration rolls last year really, really hurt the party.

The Republican Party has failed to get their message about illegal-immigration vs legal immigration across to the legal Hispanic voters.

The stance of many Republican candidates and office holders that "The first priority which must be accomplished before any immigration reform is to deport the illegals" and "No amnesty" are driving legal Hispanic voters away.

The party leadership recognizes this is a major problem that will only grow to be a bigger problem in the future.

As I said - the traditional Hispanic family values are very closely aligned with many Republican Party positions. But not supporting some type of immigration reform is killing the party chances of getting Hispanic votes.

It is not about facts - but voter preceptions and how to attract voters.

And that is why this has become the 'Issue of the Week'.

[Edited 2013-01-30 15:42:16]

User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6485 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1103 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
We need a fence, both physical and virtual. We need more boots working in enforcement

And when this totally fails to stop illegal immigration, then what? You're not going to stop illegal immigration on a 2,000 mile border with more fences....not to even mention the tons of people who legally enter the country and then simply overstay their welcome.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to get rid of the incentives that bring illegal immigrants into this country in the first place. To do that however would require cracking down on all the businesses and individuals who hire illegals, but that won't happen because those businesses have our congressmen (Republican/Democrat) bought and paid for.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):

Legal Hispanic voters are a larger voting block than Blacks. The Republican Party attracts more Black voters in recent elections than they have Hispanic voters according to many sources.

Blacks voted over 95% for Obama - and I've heard as high as 98% (all non racist, of course). Estimates I have seen for Hispanics is more like 60%.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
It's not about helping or removing illegals. The issue is how to attract Hispanic votes.

Agreed.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
Surveys show the Hispanic community very STRONGLY believes anti-illegal laws are very much anti-Hispanic in intent, and in enforcement.

That's due to the propaganda they have been pounded with, and which you perpetuated by intentionally bluring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration - which makes ALL the difference.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
They are very opposed to what they see as illegal stop and search of Hispanics based solely on their race and the perception that they are targeted.

That is a separate issue altogether.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):

A major issue in the Hispanic community is the deportation of illegal parents of children who are legal US citizens.

And as I said earlier, I am fine with giving them residency status. But citizenship? Hell no.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
The Obama administration has stepped up deportations,

No he hasn't. He has cut them in half. See my earlier post for the data. Propaganda at work again.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
He tried at the beginning of his first term and then after the midterm elections.


Yup, it lasted 3 days.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html

Let me ask you a question: if the position of a president (any president) is diametrically opposed (or even anathema) to the opposition party, doesn't the opposition party have an obligation to its constituents to resist that president?

Just because someone wins an election, does not mean the opposition party rolls over and becomes his lap dog.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 13):
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to get rid of the incentives that bring illegal immigrants into this country in the first place. To do that however would require cracking down on all the businesses and individuals who hire illegals, but that won't happen because those businesses have our congressmen (Republican/Democrat) bought and paid for.


Agreed. But, those laws are already on the books aren't they? Are they being enforced. How many employers have gone to jail for employing illegals under Obama? Under Bush? Clinton? Reagan? The laws are there...why aren't we using them?

A physical and virtual fence will stem the tide. As long as we use the damn thing, along with other enforcement measures.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 13):
....not to even mention the tons of people who legally enter the country and then simply overstay their welcome.


Let's talk about those folks. Why are they allowed to overstay? Why aren't we looking for them on the day their visa expires and booting them out? I believe they have to provide an address while there here. They are allowed to stay because we lack the political will to go after them and ensure they are leaving the country.

Let's see what the various bills look like. I want enforcement first. Stop them at the various borders and ports of entry. Then a path to normalizing the illegal immigrants that are here. Then, after paying the applicable fines (you know, for breaking the law) being offered the privilege and opportunity to become American citizens...after all those that followed the rules.

I would also add, that any immigrant, legal or illegal, that serves 2 hitches in the any branch of the military, be sworn in as a US citizen right after he (or she) re-enlists for the 2nd second hitch.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
which you perpetuated by intentionally bluring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration -

No I don't - I'm merely repeating information on how the Republican Party position is viewed by Hispanics.

Republican party candidates across the nation have consistently advocated a one point immigration policy.

Quote:
No reform for illegal or legal immigration issues until all illegals are deported.

The party and its candidates have previously refused to separate out the various issues. HR4437 is still remembered by Hispanics as targeting them.

Legal immigration has issues - not as serious as illegal immigration - but some that need to be dealt with.

Illegal immigration is a multi-faceted issue.

We cannot afford to deport every illegal. We cannot afford to find them all. The idea of No Amnesty won't work.

Efforts to make employing illegals more difficult face constant criticism from the Republican Party, along with liberals. The liberal 'issue' is that it is not humane. The Republican issue is that it is unfriendly to small business to burden them with verifying eligibility for prospective employees - and actually enforcing the current laws. Those laws have some loopholes that allow any employer with any smarts to employ plenty of illegals and not be held responible.

Most 'plans' to deal with illegals are focused on only one part of the problem and not comprehensive enough to deal with the entire issue.

I've long liked President George W. Bush's (42) proposal to open the border to workers for 'low paid' jobs. To document them and ensure they pay income taxes and social security, to remove the incentive to bring their families to the US by allowing them to cross the border easily, etc.

Unfortunately he was never able to bring that proposal to Congress due to the resistance of his own party.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
What the H does the NRA have to do with this???

Because their solution to every problem we have is more guns. In this case, we're talking about more border guards packing heat instead of accountants auditing businesses and lawmwkers closing loopholes. BTW these other approaches will also get more employers paying the taxes they should be paying to support government programs, but the GOP is all about "starving the beast" yada yada so no dice.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
But for a so-called "conservative" you sure seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of federal dollars on building fences that can simply be tunneled under/boated around/flown over and mass deportation schemes that will rival the entire DOD budget in scale.

Indeed. Conservatives are against big government except of course when they are in favor of big government, like fat contracts to the usual suspects to build walls and watchtowers, etc.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
This president is not a "bringer togetherer". He is partisan.

He tried at the beginning of his first term and then after the midterm elections. The GOP explicitly said: "We won't play. We want the President to fail."

so he tried the non-partisan, unifier approach for a bit over a year and it was, as predicted, a dismal failure. The GOP blocked and filibustered any legislation, including their own on at least one occasion. And then, he decided to step up and start fighting.

Now, emboldened by high popularity ratings and a blistering sting of an election for his opponents, he has become very partisan. He doesn't need to win any more elections. He has nothing to lose. And if the opposition is going to be obstinant and defiant whether he tries to unify or play hardball, then what does he have to lose?

        

Totally spot on. I have to laugh when I hear GOP congressmen saying that Obama isn't making bipartisan noises these days. What do they expect after four years of getting a board to the face? One thing that Obama seems to finally get is that the GOP aren't after some "grand bargain" to close the budget gap. He put those out there last year and found that Boehner could not deliver his GOP caucus because there were still too many GOP members thinking that Grover Norvquist (sp) mattered, and too many still do.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 13):
And when this totally fails to stop illegal immigration, then what?

More walls, more guns, more dogs, more horses, more ATVs, more helicopters, more drones, ad infinitum.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 13):
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to get rid of the incentives that bring illegal immigrants into this country in the first place. To do that however would require cracking down on all the businesses and individuals who hire illegals, but that won't happen because those businesses have our congressmen (Republican/Democrat) bought and paid for.

Sad but true, but the good news is these issues can eventually be solved. It's economically impossible to solve the problem via fences. Anyone who thinks we can just wall off the Rio Grande clearly hasn't been there. Once you do that, then it's time to wall off the Gulf Coast next, etc.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Let me ask you a question: if the position of a president (any president) is diametrically opposed (or even anathema) to the opposition party, doesn't the opposition party have an obligation to its constituents to resist that president?

Hmm, above you were claiming the problem was that Obama wasn't bi-partisan enough, and now you postulate that the issue is that the GOP isn't able to be anything but opposed to everything he does. What?

The reality is that there is a lot of common ground, but some have decided they can't be seen to be giving an inch.

The reality is that Congress's job is to improve the lives of the Citizens of the USA, but instead they are too interested in political posturing and getting re-elected by granting copious amounts of corporate welfare.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Agreed. But, those laws are already on the books aren't they? Are they being enforced. How many employers have gone to jail for employing illegals under Obama? Under Bush? Clinton? Reagan? The laws are there...why aren't we using them?

Yes, that should be the approach. The problem in many cases are that the laws are undermined. Already we read in the current proposals that agri-business already has set up special provisions to protect its interests.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
A physical and virtual fence will stem the tide.

No, it won't. Today the easiest 650 miles have walls, but those are merely defeated with ladders, even in areas where there's a 'no mans land' in between. Even if it was economically feasible to build 2000 miles of walls with the requisite no mans land in between, there's not enough money to pay enough people to defend all that turf, and to also be on the lookout for tunnels, or those who bypass the wall by boat or air, and so on.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Let's talk about those folks. Why are they allowed to overstay? Why aren't we looking for them on the day their visa expires and booting them out?

Really? You think we have enough resources to send someone to every visa holder's reported residence and make sure they leave the US? Heck, today Border Patrol does "catch and release" for any illegal crosser they catch that doesn't have a criminal record in the US. We already can't afford to imprison everyone we catch illegally entering the US, so clearly we can't afford to go look for more.

The solution is to dry up the incentive to come, i.e. follow the money. If they come to work illegally, bust the employers till it gets to the point where the illegals have no reason to come.

And while we're at it, legalize recreational soft drugs. Allow US entities to grow the plants and make the profits and have them pay US taxes and use some of it to set up US treatment centers. That too would reduce the need to spend money on Border Patrol and would undermine the cartels operating at the MEX border.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1047 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Why are they allowed to overstay? Why aren't we looking for them on the day their visa expires and booting them out?

We don't have exit controls on our borders.

Both the conservatives and the liberals are against ICE/DHS tracking when people leave this country, because it would track US citizens also.

Legal tourist visa users enter and leave this country legally every day, and we don't know when they have left the country.

We don't know when student visa users leave the country, we don't know when 1B, H-1B and L1 visa users leave the country unless them make a specific effort to inform immigration.

The immigration authorities have asked for the money to build a comprehensive tracking system, and it has been denied by Congress bill markup stage over and over.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
The laws are there...why aren't we using them?

1) Because it is bad for small business.
2) The law allows an illegal to apply for employment with obviously fake documentation - and the employer cannot deny employment based on a presumption the documentation is fake.
3) The law does not make employer responsible for violations if they have used E-Verify in good faith.
4) E-Verify is not cross linked to Social Security and the IRS to catch mutiple users of the same SSN.
5) Employers can avoid I-9 requirements by outsourcing their jobs to contractors - Big companies LOVE this provision.

But the real reason we are not enforcing I-9 requirements and holding employers responsible is because the big companies in the US do not want those laws tightly enforced. They contribute millions of dollars to congressmen of both parties campaign funds - and they get help preventing that from the congressmen they help elect.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
Both the conservatives and the liberals are against ICE/DHS tracking when people leave this country, because it would track US citizens also


Every time I leave the country my passport is scanned.

We lack the political will to enforce the laws, that's it. And why's that?

From the left: the illegal community makes up a very vocal special interest block supported by the Hispanic voting community.

From the right: the cheaper labor offered by employing illegals is too tempting to small and mid level businesses in the service industry.

In short, we aren't going to change enforcement without the political will to stand up to some very strong constituent groups. And, if we don't change and improve enforcement, normalization of the current crop of should not and can not be allowed to happen. Otherwise, we'll be in the same spot 10 or 20 years down the road.

Wasn't it Ted Kennedy that said (paraphrasing) we would never do amnesty again if the Reagan bill were passed?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Let me ask you a question: if the position of a president (any president) is diametrically opposed (or even anathema) to the opposition party, doesn't the opposition party have an obligation to its constituents to resist that president?

Not when the opposition party is opposing itself. ObamaCare was a GOP idea crafted by none other than Mr. Mitt Romney. He publicly lauded his own individual mandate.

They opposed it because it was a Democratic idea. And the moment that Barak Hussein Obama became President-Elect anything Democratic went from laughable in GOP eyes to deepest loathing. They refused to negotiate on anything. They repealed it many times.

At the beginning of the 2010 term, the GOP and DNC sat down to discuss what common goals they might have for the term and the GOP representative said: "Leadership says we can't play." It was an unprecedented moment in American politics.

I may lean left, but I am not a Democrat. I just tells it like I sees it. The GOP's behavior has been responsible for a lot of the continued troubles this country has. Every time the DNC makes a proposal, the GOP just shouts it down without suggesting anything reasonable in return. From the Aiken rape comments to the suggestion that pre-existing condition exclusions are somehow good for patients to open anti-Islam sentiment, the GOP has begun to behave in a very sick fashion that suggests a psychopathological divorce from reality.

[Edited 2013-01-30 22:47:46]

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7951 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The best way is to audit employers strictly so there's no good jobs for illegals to come pursue.

Employers have lobbyists too. This will never fly.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1787 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 979 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
The Obama administration has policies in place where the only people deported are violent criminals - everyone else is let go.

Most people that are deported are people arrested for non-violent offenses, their fingerprints are scanned and it pops on an ICE computer. ICE will take them and bring them to a detention facility where they will wait for a deportation hearing and in most cases they will be deported.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
Every time I leave the country my passport is scanned.


The US does not have exit passport control. Swiping your passport at the check-in counter is just to collect APHIS data not an exit control.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 966 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21):
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The best way is to audit employers strictly so there's no good jobs for illegals to come pursue.

Employers have lobbyists too. This will never fly.

Never is a long time. 10-20 years ago I didn't think I'd see gay marriage or smoke free zones in offices and restaurants.

Folks, we have to decide what way we want to go and start down that path.

The reality is there is a lot of low-paying jobs that current citizens won't take, and there are low-paying jobs that current citizens would take but they are being cut out by illegals willing to take money under the table because they're already illegal. We have to address both issues.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 954 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Agreed. But, those laws are already on the books aren't they? Are they being enforced. How many employers have gone to jail for employing illegals under Obama? Under Bush? Clinton? Reagan? The laws are there...why aren't we using them?

Two reasons:
1 - there is no money to pay for all this;
2 - the illegals are in many cases doing work Americans simply will not do. For example, would you clean toilets for $5/hour ? I didn't think so.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Let's talk about those folks. Why are they allowed to overstay? Why aren't we looking for them on the day their visa expires and booting them out? I believe they have to provide an address while there here. They are allowed to stay because we lack the political will to go after them and ensure they are leaving the country.

There is no money to pay for all this.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Indeed. Conservatives are against big government except of course when they are in favor of big government, like fat contracts to the usual suspects to build walls and watchtowers, etc.

Yes. I'm quite sure the directors of Halliburton, for example, supported Obama.   

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
He put those out there last year and found that Boehner could not deliver his GOP caucus because there were still too many GOP members thinking that Grover Norvquist (sp) mattered, and too many still do.

IMHO, Grover Norquist is as much a POS as is Piers Morgan, being discussed in another thread. If he had any balls, he'd actually run for office. But no, he sits in the cheap seats and tells people how it should be.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
And while we're at it, legalize recreational soft drugs. Allow US entities to grow the plants and make the profits and have them pay US taxes and use some of it to set up US treatment centers. That too would reduce the need to spend money on Border Patrol and would undermine the cartels operating at the MEX border.

Legalise the whole kit and kaboodle. If people want to kill themselves with drugs, so be it. Encourage farmers to grow weed and poppies, then process the product, you'd increase both employment and tax revenue. And in so doing, you'd gut the economic basis of the Mexican cartels -- which are the biggest security threat to the US. It's not in Afghanistan, that's for sure.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Dreadnought : What do you think will happen if there was no illegal labor to do those jobs for cheap? You seem to be under the erroneous assumption that the jobs s
26 FlyPNS1 : Because the financial incentives of using illegal labor exceeds the cost....particularly for all the business owners who employ them. It's capitalism
27 lewis : As an L1 holder, I am required to give away my I-94 form whenever I leave the country. Doesn't that trigger the recording of my departure somehow?
28 Post contains links DocLightning : Correct assumption. In fact, states that have enacted harsh anti-immigrant laws have had major negative impact on agriculture. http://business.time.c
29 Dreadnought : Ummm, not all conservatives are sweatshop owners, farm owners, or otherwise involved in such practices. Maybe 0.5% are. How do you explain the other
30 DocLightning : Funny, you seem to have a very convenient view of when it should be "States Rights" and when it shouldn't be. Basic civil rights, you claim, should b
31 Dreadnought : Nothing funny about it - that's why securing borders has always been a national government job - not just in the US but in every country in the world
32 rfields5421 : It goes into the system. All the testimony I've seen on C-Span before Congress says that the data is not cross referenced against your entry records
33 FlyPNS1 : Not all conservatives, but look at the many business owners (large and small) that benefit from cheap labor. Look at the suburban couple that hires i
34 Dreadnought : The markets have been distorted by illegal labor and other things. In reality, Walmart, McDonalds and all those farms are being subsidized by the fed
35 DocLightning : Why would the Democratic party WANT people on food stamps? What possible motivation could they have to make people dependent on government handouts?
36 Post contains links and images Aaron747 : OK maybe not....but.... Please tell me that less than half of the red counties on that map don't belong to rural areas and the Big Food corporate int
37 Pellegrine : I guess you're ready to go off the deep end. Wide swaths of the country are EMPTY of human existence. Your map is politically biased. WY only has est
38 Dreadnought : Seriously? Since Obama came into power they have been advertising and pushing food stamps like a telemarketing firm. My wife continues to receive pho
39 Pellegrine : ??? I live in a 6+ figure household per year. I don't receive any calls... And you want to bring race into this? In reference to Obama? Really? My re
40 Dreadnought : Yep. And my wife isn't even a citizen - she has a green card. We get such calls particularly from Atlanta HHS at least every quarter. We answered tru
41 FlyPNS1 : People can't just demand higher wages without consequence. Who's to say Wal-Mart and others would actually pay higher wages? In many small towns, pla
42 Post contains links FlyDeltaJets : According to this study it will cost consumers approx $12/year to raise wages up to just $12/hr. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/reta...l/bigbox_livi
43 rfields5421 : First federal offices don't administer the food stamp program. That is state offices who qualify people and arrange the distribution of the federal a
44 Revelation : They won't "have to", they might choose to though. Wages are only one element of Wal*Mart's cost base, and of course it's up to them how much profit
45 FlyDeltaJets : Hold on there, you are speaking too much truth for one post.
46 Dreadnought : I can assure you they do. I was also under that impression. I work in telecom, and my phone is on our system. So after one of the calls, I used XMS H
47 rfields5421 : Unfortunately you've been caught in a lie from somewhere. Because US Federal Government Department of Health and Human Services has nothing to do wit
48 Dreadnought : I did not say she was offered food stamps. I said : They say things like, "we'd like to ask you some questions to see if you might qualify for certai
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is Arizona's New Immigration Bill Racist? posted Tue Apr 20 2010 22:27:36 by alberchico
Immigration Bill Defeated! posted Thu Jun 28 2007 17:40:23 by Pope
500,000 Protest In Dallas Against Immigration Bill posted Mon Apr 10 2006 13:38:20 by Texan
Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill posted Tue Mar 28 2006 08:03:10 by Airbus3801
Bush's Immigration Bill Is Dead In The Water! posted Sat Feb 7 2004 01:22:06 by North County
Obama Calls Dems To Health Bill Chat posted Tue Dec 15 2009 09:14:07 by Starbuk7
WSJ: Obama Admin Immigration Policy Out Of Sight posted Wed Aug 19 2009 17:10:03 by Aaron747
Bushs Immigration Reform Bill. Opinions? posted Wed Jun 20 2007 17:40:30 by AA787823
GOP Congressmen Introduce Anti-oversight Bill posted Sun May 23 2004 20:48:41 by Aloha717200
Court: Obama N.L.R.B Appointments Unconstitutional posted Fri Jan 25 2013 14:59:18 by LAXintl