LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by onalandline
On the contrary, this Truth has already been thoroughly documented on the many other threads on this subject. The repeated right wing lies are the only jokes on this forum.
Commentator
On the contrary, this Truth has already been thoroughly documented on the many other threads on this subject. The repeated right wing lies are the only jokes on this forum.
Corporations enjoyed their highest profits since 1900 under President Obama ~ why don't the right wing media celebrate this TRUTH?
November 2012 elections: A victory for America!
First of all, I don't care what Bush did or didn't do. Both Repubicans and Democraps are guilty of not giving a crap about illegal immigration.
Arizona was only picking up the slack from the federal government, and not adding anything that went above and beyond federal law. Obama also rescinded the LOA between federal and local law enforcement officials that enabled the local authorities to deal with illegal immigration. Obama cut off a huge resource.
Obama has also just made illegal immigration worse by giving de facto amnesty to over a million illegals. They are illegals, right? They did break our immigration laws, right? Obama has just giving illegals all over the world hope. More will come.
Unfortunately, most politicians are not willing to do what will really curtail illegal immigration: SECURE OUR BORDERS!
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!" - Barack Hussein Obama
Your quote: "Everybody knows that Obama has slowed down illegal immigration into the USA and has forced a mass exodus of Mexican illegals back home."
Maybe you are right. The terrible economy Obama has created has curtailed illegal immigration.
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!" - Barack Hussein Obama
Former Mod
The point made was that the Obama adminstration has been deporting more individuals than prior adminstrations and that he's targeting those that all of us would agree are the most important as far as deportation. With limited funding from Congress the Obama adminstration is doing more than any prior adminstration. Remember that funding is always limited and any President has to establish the priorities for spending those funds. Can anyone actually condemn the priorities that the Obama adminstration has applied in addressing deportation? Isn't deporting criminal aliens the most important category to address? Does anyone argue with that priority?
"Arizona was only picking up the slack" is a false representation of the truth. In fact what has been found is that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's department was violating the US Constitution in racially profiling Hispanics.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...-alleging.htmlThe U.S. Department of Justice has filed a politically charged civil lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, alleging that his department racially profiles, bullies and discriminates against Hispanics in county jails and during traffic stops.
The federal lawsuit also claims the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office unfairly retaliates against political and media critics of its immigration raids, crime sweeps and treatment of Hispanics.
The issue was malfeasance by Arizona law enforcement, predominately by Sheriff Joe Arpaio that is a known racist, which was violating the US Constitution. Had Arizona law enforcement, or law enforcement in any state, been following the federal guidelines there would have been no problems but they have demonstrated that they won't follow the federal guidelines related to immigration. As was also documented the Arizona legislature also over-stepped it's authority related to immigration according to the US Supreme Court. The federal government, not the states, defines immigration policy. Is there any dispute with this fact?
I draw the line with the term "illegal" as that, to me, represents someone that has violated a criminal law. Being undocumented is not a criminal offense, it is a civil matter. The so-called "de facto" amnesty is nor related to any criminal aliens. It is addressing those that, for whatever reason, entered the US legally and have since had their visas expire. These are overwhelmingly members of working families that contribute to the success of the US economy, pay taxed, and are immigrants that we want in the United States. They did not "break our immigration laws" by entering the country illegally nor have they committed any criminal act. The only issue for them is a documentation issue. Once they have their visas re-instated under the US immigration laws then they will be legal immigrants as they should be. Is there really any argument about this?
The vast majority of individuals we're concerned with didn't cross the border illegally but instead are undocumented aliens which entered the country legally. Securing our borders does little related to the overall issues of immigration. As also noted even when the Obama adminstration makes an effort to improve our border security by closing down ineffective check points and moving agents closer to the border where they can be more effective some complain about it. How absurd is that? Remember that there are only so many dollars that can be spent so either we keep ineffective check points and let more individuals illegally cross into the United States or close them and move the Border Patrol agents closer to the border where they can stop more of those illegally entering the country. This is about improving our border security so how can someone logically oppose it? The actual number of individuals entering the country illegally has been down since Obama took office so we're actually moving in the right direction, are we not?
But here is a point I would make and it does address Congress which controls the immigration laws and not the Obama adminstration which merely enforces them with the limited resources provided by Congress. The current immigration laws are absurd and both Republicans and Democrats agree on this fact. I have long proposed eliminating the "quota" system which is discriminatory. Instead we need a simple immigration law and I've proposed three criteria for it.
- Prohibit Criminals that have violated laws related to property or persons (i.e. crimes with a victim) or those that have nefarious purposes (e.g. terrorists) from immigrating to the US
- Require a person wanting to immgrate to have a job offer before the visa is issued and that they miust remain basically employed as long as they are in the United States (e.g. some unemployment would be allowed but not chronic unemployment).
- Require those immigrating to the US to be able to speak English.
If they meet this these requirements then they should be allowed to legally immigrate to the United States. That would solve so many problems especially related to illegal crossing of our border because we would then be focused on those trying to cross the border for criminal purposes and not for those that just want to come here to work for a better life. A simple revision to the immigration laws that can be captured in three sentences.
Last edited by Shiva_TD; Jul 19 2012 at 03:57 AM.
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Of course, criminals are a priority. However, Obama's policies for the rest is just inviting more illegal immigration.
I was talking about SB 1070, not Joe. I like Joe."Arizona was only picking up the slack" is a false representation of the truth. In fact what has been found is that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's department was violating the US Constitution in racially profiling Hispanics.
You may be correct. Then why rescind the LOA?The issue was malfeasance by Arizona law enforcement, predominately by Sheriff Joe Arpaio that is a known racist, which was violating the US Constitution. Had Arizona law enforcement, or law enforcement in any state, been following the federal guidelines there would have been no problems but they have demonstrated that they won't follow the federal guidelines related to immigration. As was also documented the Arizona legislature also over-stepped it's authority related to immigration according to the US Supreme Court. The federal government, not the states, defines immigration policy. Is there any dispute with this fact?
This is complete BS. They most certainly broke immigration laws, both by entering illegaly and by staying and/or working. Why give this class of criminal a free pass? What's next? Yes, they are illegals. By the way, if you were illegaly in Mexico, it is a felony.I draw the line with the term "illegal" as that, to me, represents someone that has violated a criminal law. Being undocumented is not a criminal offense, it is a civil matter. The so-called "de facto" amnesty is nor related to any criminal aliens. It is addressing those that, for whatever reason, entered the US legally and have since had their visas expire. These are overwhelmingly members of working families that contribute to the success of the US economy, pay taxed, and are immigrants that we want in the United States. They did not "break our immigration laws" by entering the country illegally nor have they committed any criminal act. The only issue for them is a documentation issue. Once they have their visas re-instated under the US immigration laws then they will be legal immigrants as they should be. Is there really any argument about this?
The border needs to be secure if ANY actions to reduce illegal aliens is going to last. Yes, there is less illegal immigration now, but that is mostly due to the lack of jobs in this country, so I guess Obama gets credit for that.The vast majority of individuals we're concerned with didn't cross the border illegally but instead are undocumented aliens which entered the country legally. Securing our borders does little related to the overall issues of immigration. As also noted even when the Obama adminstration makes an effort to improve our border security by closing down ineffective check points and moving agents closer to the border where they can be more effective some complain about it. How absurd is that? Remember that there are only so many dollars that can be spent so either we keep ineffective check points and let more individuals illegally cross into the United States or close them and move the Border Patrol agents closer to the border where they can stop more of those illegally entering the country. This is about improving our border security so how can someone logically oppose it? The actual number of individuals entering the country illegally has been down since Obama took office so we're actually moving in the right direction, are we not?
Criminals are already not allowed to immigrate. Immigrants are already supposed to be able to read, speak and understand the English language. Many come here on work/education visas, but over-stay. It doesn't matter what the requirements are, there will still be droves of illegals that do not care.But here is a point I would make and it does address Congress which controls the immigration laws and not the Obama adminstration which merely enforces them with the limited resources provided by Congress. The current immigration laws are absurd and both Republicans and Democrats agree on this fact. I have long proposed eliminating the "quota" system which is discriminatory. Instead we need a simple immigration law and I've proposed three criteria for it.
- Prohibit Criminals that have violated laws related to property or persons (i.e. crimes with a victim) or those that have nefarious purposes (e.g. terrorists) from immigrating to the US
- Require a person wanting to immgrate to have a job offer before the visa is issued and that they miust remain basically employed as long as they are in the United States (e.g. some unemployment would be allowed but not chronic unemployment).
- Require those immigrating to the US to be able to speak English.
If they meet this these requirements then they should be allowed to legally immigrate to the United States. That would solve so many problems especially related to illegal crossing of our border because we would then be focused on those trying to cross the border for criminal purposes and not for those that just want to come here to work for a better life. A simple revision to the immigration laws that can be captured in three sentences.
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!" - Barack Hussein Obama
Former Mod
Just a couple of comments and then a question.
Arizona SB 1070 infringed upon federal authority related to immigration (as do some laws passed in other states) based upon the Supreme Court decision. I beleive we can all agree that it was the responsibility of the excutive branch, regardless of who might be president, to challenge state laws that infringe upon federal authority. We'll skip a discussion on Sheriff Joe Arpaio per se but many of us see him as a racist tyrant exceeding his authority as a sheriff which violates the Constitutional Rights of Persons.
It would appear, based upon statements made, that the previous issues related to the closing of a limited number of immigration check points to move Border Partol Agents closer to the border and improve the effectiveness of stopping people from illegally entering the United States was a positive move by the Obama Administration. If the goal is to reduce illegal border crossings then this action cannot be condemned by anyone.
There is no requirement for those immigrating to the United States to know or understand English under our immigration laws. Yes, in general criminals are prohibited from immigrating. Also excluded are millions of foreigners, overwhelmingly "brown skinned" individuals, that would choose to come here to honestly work and contribute to the American economy and society and make a better life for themselves and their families, based upon our current "quota" system. Our current immigration laws really do suck and need to be revised. My personal opinion is that we should allow any non-criminal that wants to come to the United States to make a better life for themself and their family by working, paying taxes, and embracing the American way of life to legally immigrate.
The claims that the Obama administration is encouraging illegal entry into the United States is purely partisan rhetoric.
There is a huge difference between someone that violates our immigration laws by illegally crossing the border and someone who's here working and contributing to America but that has their visa expire. As I've noted crossing the border illegally is a felony but having a visa expire is a civil offense. It is extremely myopic to lump people that commit a felony in with those that are only guilty of a civil offense. As was also noted the children of immigrants that were brought here by their parents are not guilty of breaking any US immigration laws because they can't even obtain a visa until they're 21 from what I understand. There are three different classifications and each needs to be addressed in a rational and reasonable manner.
Now to establishing a foundation for the questions.
With limited funding to enforce the immigration laws we can assume that there is a limit on the number of individuals that can be deported. Let us assume that only 300,000 people can be deported per year based upon available funding so how should we address each of the categories listed below?
1. Those that commit a felony by illegally enter the United States and/or those that commit a felony while living in the United States.
2. Those that entered the country legally but have since had their visas expire and are technically in violation of civil code but these are generally hard working individuals contributing to our economy and the American society.
3. Children of those in the country "illegally" under our immigration laws but that have not personally violated any US laws and to which the United States is the only homeland they really know.
There are at least ten million people that need to be addressed and while we could increase the number being deported that would come at the expense of less manpower to secure our borders which is the number one priority. We can assume that there is some funds that can be used to sort out the documentation problems related to visas which is relatively inexpensive when compared to deportation. Perhaps 10-20 people could be removed from the "illegal immigrant" status making them legal immigrants by simple documentation for every individual that is deported. The ultimate goal, IMO, is to stop illegal entry into the United States and to have those that are in the United States to be here legally. Is that not true? So with limited funding, which will always be the case, how do we remove over 10 million people from "illegal immigrant" status in the most expeditious manner possible?
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall
First of all, we need to secure the border. Many libs like to point out that Reagan gave amnesty. Yes, he did, but part of the deal was to secure the border, which has not happened. Of course, getting rid of criminal illegals takes priority. However, giving a break to others just invites more. I think the ultimate goal is to stop illegal immigration, and send a message that it will not be tolerated. We need to do more to discourage illegals than to encourage them.
Do you think that any other country would bend over backwards to enable those that came there illegally, to stay there legally? I don't think so.
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!" - Barack Hussein Obama
Obama's Plan Coming Together...
Hoekstra: Obama Unwilling to Keep Borders Safe Under Sequestration:
The United States borders are about to become “25 percent less secure’’ as a result of budget slashing due to automatic spending cuts triggered by the sequester, Fox News reports.
Agents will no longer work a full 10-hour shift, meaning that the borders could be open and unattended during shift changes, according to Fox.
The cuts, which are to take effect on April 7 and affect up to 4,000 agents, come because the government has eliminated overtime payments.
And because some agents have to drive for up to two hours to get to work, they may end up working as little as five hours a day during their patrols, Fox said.
Some agents told the network that the government actually has the funds to pay them, although the government denies the allegation.
But Pete Hoekstra, the former chairman of the powerful House Intelligence Committee, told Newsmax on Wednesday that predictions of the nation’s borders becoming less secure was “a very serious miscalculation by this administration.”
“There’s other things they could be cutting to meet the requirements of sequestration and, at the same time, keep America safe.”
He said that the continuing budget resolution signed into law on Monday by President Barack Obama, which funds the federal government through Sept. 30, provides the White House with enough flexibility in making the $85 billion in broad sequestration cuts.
“The kinds of changes that are being talked about and proposed really don’t have to happen,” he told Newsmax.
Expected are reductions in border agents, mandated furlough days and cuts in hours that could have some agents seeing their salaries cut by as much as 40 percent.
“This is going to hit us hard,” one border guard, Nathan LeGender, told WXYZ-TV News.
Agents said they are concerned about being able to feed their families and pay their mortgages.
Meanwhile, Hoekstra, who serves on the advisory board of LIGNET.com, a global intelligence and forecasting service based in Washington, said the border cutbacks come as President Obama seeks a vote on immigration reform next month after Congress returns from recess.
“It’s the president’s responsibility to secure the borders, to keep America safe,” Hoekstra told Newsmax. “I find this to be a very, very interesting development, when the president has also said he wants to have a debate and a vote on immigration reform in April.
“It’s going to make passing immigration reform very, very difficult.”
Source
Last edited by onalandline; Mar 28 2013 at 05:21 AM.
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!" - Barack Hussein Obama
Former Mod
The estimated number of illegal border crossings has dropped from roughly 400,000 per year under the Bush Adminstration to roughly 200,000 under the Obama Adminstration. While there are several factors related to this drop of 50% much of it has to do with better border enforcement.
While I don't have a link to an older news story I recall Republicans complaining that Obama was closing two border patrol stations in Texas but what they failed to mention was that the agents were being relocated closer to the US-Mexican border where they would be more effective.
We must also note that the Congress only authorizes limited funding for deportation proceedings so the number of cases that can be heard and people deported is fundamentally a fixed number. It probably costs more to deport a criminal illegal alien than it does a non-criminal illegal alien (often the non-criminal illegal alien has simply over-stayed a work visa and it's a documentation issue). With a fixed about of money and fundamentally a fixed number of possible deportations then it makes a lot of sense to deport the criminals first.
At the same time the Obama Adminstration has offered 2-yeard deferral of deportation for those children of illegal aliens that are under 30 and grew up in the United States. Those individuals have to self-identify themself to obtain this deferral of deportation so now the INS has them identified and knows who and where they are. This was a huge coup in addressing illegal immigration. Obama basically has many hundreds of thousands of "undocumented" illegal aliens walking into INS offices to identify themself. This literally saves hundreds of millions of dollars related to enforcement of our immigration laws. And many Republicans condemned this cost saving and very effective executive action in enforcing our immigration laws.
Last edited by Shiva_TD; Mar 28 2013 at 05:47 AM.
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Former Mod
This is absolute nonsense. Reducing or cutting overtime does not imply less effective enforcement.
I might have a bias opinion but it's my belief that government workers don't "do more" when they're authorized to work overtime. All they do is collect more money in wages. Having worked in the private sector all of my life I would say that a government workers could do twice as much in half the time if they wanted to but we all know that government jobs are about not doing more than necessary for the paycheck in most cases. Give a police officer an extra hour of overtime and they'll probably spend it at the donut shop.
Of course we shouldn't forget that it was the Republicans that decided sequester was the way to go because they refused to address the issue from a bi-partisan standpoint. How many Democratic votes did Paul Ryan get in the House to avoid sequester?
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks