U.S. To Allow Certain Illegal Immigrants To Stay In Country

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, it was NOT done by executive order. Such inaccuracy kind of ruins the attempted smear.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney’s meaningless blather may be just to avoid acknowledging that Obama took a brave and eminently reasonable step.

Not really. A cynical, politically calculated sham.

[chuckd]

Romney’s meaningless blather may be just to avoid acknowledging that Obama took a brave and eminently reasonable step.

Not really. A cynical, politically calculated sham.

It seems Romney is not allowed to have a political reason for doing or not doing something while Obama seems to have free rein in this regard.

Obama got that money request out pretty quick, though.

[Scott]

Obama got that money request out pretty quick, though.

Not as quick as I am going to start issuing suspension unless you get back on the topic and start acting in a civil manner. The snide remarks from the same posters with the same opinion is getting old.

Enough.

[samran]

He should be leading and talking to both sides of the aisles and try to hammer out some immigration reform. I am not against these young people that have been placed in this position by their parents, but a stop gap measure is not the answer. Obama should do his job and act Presidential for a change by trying to lead Congress into taking action.

You know that this issue is poison for Republicans. Any pragmatic Republicans who propose common sense reforms are hounded out of town by the Tea Partiers. John McCain used to be a proponent for common sense reform from memory. From memory, that support vanished the second he needed to re-contest his own senate nomination by the Republicans under tea party challenge.

[Steely Dan]

http://chicksontheri...tle-is-furious/ To all you red bloodied American Patriots out there, I urge you to view this video ,its true to say I am not one of you,however as my late dear father who was on convoy duty in WW2 guarding merchant ships ferrying American war supplies both to the UK and to our allies often said 'God bless America" and from what I have read in the last 3 years fills me with a certain amount of apprehension .

Didn't mince his words did he now.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

Actually, it was NOT done by executive order. Such inaccuracy kind of ruins the attempted smear.

Correction: executive ACTION, not order.

There was substance in my post and the link provided. A nitpick doesn't take that away.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Romney’s meaningless blather may be just to avoid acknowledging that Obama took a brave and eminently reasonable step.

Not really. A cynical, politically calculated sham.

It seems Romney is not allowed to have a political reason for doing or not doing something while Obama seems to have free rein in this regard.

Obama got that money request out pretty quick, though.

Is Romney for or against the dream act? Obama is for the dream act. 'Nuff said.

[theblether]

This is out and out electoral bribery and it's an embarrassment. No excuses, no justifications, nothing.

I happen to believe the decision has a worthy degree of compassion and will ultimately be to the benefit of the US, a country that has a track record of granting immigration amnesties however!!!

Not now!!........not in the middle of General Election season. It's demeaning for the US political process, and a serious misjudgement by Barack Obama.

[Ulysses G.]

This is out and out electoral bribery and it's an embarrassment. No excuses, no justifications, nothing.

Exactly. It kind of reminds me of a case in which a candidate promised to raise salaries if elected.

[Jingthing]

Exactly. It kind of reminds me of a case in which a candidate promised to raise salaries if elected.

What kinds of things does Romney promise? Extension/expansion of tax breaks for the most wealthy, for example. Why do the billionaires give so much to him? Because they're good people?

The reality is that Obama and the democrats have wished to help the DREAM ACT eligible immigrants but because the democrats are for it, the republicans became against it, just to block anything Obama is for, no matter how sensible, how just, how good for the ENTIRE nation. So passing legislatively was impossible, also thanks to the outrageous abuse of forcing 60 votes in the senate, much more in a short period than at any other time in all of American history, by the Obama removal obsessed republicans.

So to do something for the DREAM ACT eligibles, this was all Obama could do. As far as the timing, so it's politics, cry me a river. All politicians play politics, especially in an election year. To demonize Obama over this when he has done a very good thing for the country with this is blatantly hypocritical.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

What kinds of things does Romney promise? Extension/expansion of tax breaks for the most wealthy, for example.

Actually, the tax breaks would be for EVERYBODY and the point is to stimulate a terrible economy.

[koheesti]

The blame for the Dream Act failing falls upon the Democrats. Three Republicans voted for it. The Dream Act was only 5 votes shy of passing, and 5 Dems voted against, and 1 Dem didn't vote at all because he had a Christmas party to attend. So it could have been 61-38 in favor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/dream-act-vote-senate_n_798631.html

DREAM Act Vote Fails In Senate

The final vote total was 55-41 -- well above what would be needed for the bill to pass in a normal vote. Many previously undecided Democrats voted in support of the bill, as did Republican Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah).

But others voted mostly along party-lines. Five Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jon Tester (D-Mt.), Max Baucus (D-Mt.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who switched her vote to a "no" at the last minute. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) skipped Saturday's votes for a Christmas party.

Edited June 20, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

The blame for the Dream Act failing falls upon the Democrats. Three Republicans voted for it. The Dream Act was only 5 votes shy of passing, and 5 Dems voted against, and 1 Dem didn't vote at all because he had a Christmas party to attend. So it could have been 61-38 in favor.

http://www.huffingto...e_n_798631.html

DREAM Act Vote Fails In Senate

The final vote total was 55-41 -- well above what would be needed for the bill to pass in a normal vote. Many previously undecided Democrats voted in support of the bill, as did Republican Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah).

But others voted mostly along party-lines. Five Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Jon Tester (D-Mt.), Max Baucus (D-Mt.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who switched her vote to a "no" at the last minute. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) skipped Saturday's votes for a Christmas party.

I just noticed - a female Republican from Alaska voted for the Dream Act as did a Mormon Republican from Utah. I guess that means they aren't all bad, eh?

[Jingthing]

If it was NORMAL vote before the republicans started ABUSING the power to demand SIXTY votes in the senate of 100 when FIFTY votes should be enough, it would have passed, yes? It's ridiculous to blame the democrats for this just because they don't vote as a perfect block, as this has been an epidemic of republican abuse of this trick. I do wish republicans would at least take responsibility for these damaging tactics, but, no instead they whine like mad when Obama does all that IS possible now on the dream act eligibles.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

If it was NORMAL vote before the republicans started ABUSING the power to demand SIXTY votes in the senate of 100 when FIFTY votes should be enough, it would have passed, yes? It's ridiculous to blame the democrats for this just because they don't vote as a perfect block, as this has been an epidemic of republican abuse of this trick. I do wish republicans would at least take responsibility for these damaging tactics, but, no instead they whine like mad when Obama does all that IS possible now on the dream act eligibles.

As explained in an earlier post, Cloture was adopted by the US Senate in 1919 which required a two-thirds majority to stop debate.

The DEMOCRATS in 1975 decided on three-fifths, which is 60 votes. The DEMOCRATS could have gone to 51 in 1975 and the Republicans wouldn't have to take the blame for Democrat's mistakes so often.

[theblether]

As far as the timing, so it's politics, cry me a river.

It's not politics, it's electoral corruption.

Looks familiar to me

[Jingthing]

If it was NORMAL vote before the republicans started ABUSING the power to demand SIXTY votes in the senate of 100 when FIFTY votes should be enough, it would have passed, yes? It's ridiculous to blame the democrats for this just because they don't vote as a perfect block, as this has been an epidemic of republican abuse of this trick. I do wish republicans would at least take responsibility for these damaging tactics, but, no instead they whine like mad when Obama does all that IS possible now on the dream act eligibles.

As explained in an earlier post, Cloture was adopted by the US Senate in 1919 which required a two-thirds majority to stop debate.

The DEMOCRATS in 1975 decided on three-fifths, which is 60 votes. The DEMOCRATS could have gone to 51 in 1975 and the Republicans wouldn't have to take the blame for Democrat's mistakes so often.

Which party has massively and systemically ABUSED this option (60 votes) under Obama? The republicans. If they had not, we'd be back to normal, 50 votes. The republicans have pushed the 60 votes as a tactic, at historically aggressive volumes. Not about 1975, snookums, this is about what the republicans have done under Obama. Their admitted tactic is to block Obama in all possible ways even if they (used to) agree with the Obama proposals. So again, for Obama, to get this done in this new toxic reality enforced by the obstructionist republicans, he needs to take measures like he did recently for Dream Act eligibles.

In any case, Obama took this executive action. Romney refuses to say whether he would continue the policy of the action for Dream Act eligibles if elected. You're darn right a good majority of Latino Americans are going to continue to support President Obama as they did in 2008! Again, well done, Obama, for doing the right thing and finding a way to do something in the diseased environment of constant anti-Obama blocks by the republicans. It's not fair for these worthy Dream Act eligibles to have to be victims of the cynical, non-progressive, republicans. No principles, just if Obama is for it, we're against it.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

No principles, just if Obama is for it, we're against it.

Maybe if he had stood up for these things before he was approaching an election someone might believe it.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

No principles, just if Obama is for it, we're against it.

Maybe if he had stood up for these things before he was approaching an election someone might believe it.

No, you can't get away with that one on THIS issue.

http://news.change.org/stories/obama-i-support-the-dream-act-100-percent

Obama: "I Support the Dream Act 100 Percent"

by Dave Bennion · 2009-05-28 09:00:00 UTC

“It is necessary that we obtain at least 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives. This is something we still have to achieve,” Obama indicated.

Again, the support of Obama for the Dream Act, basically the topic of this thread, is 100 percent and the blame in FORCING this to be a 60 vote super majority in the senate is 100 percent on the party of Romney and Rubio.

[Jingthing]

In the end, the DEMOCRATS blocked the Dream Act during Obama's first term, NOT the Republicans.

That is simply an absurd falsehood. It failed to get 60 votes (to meet the debate rule abused by the obstructionist republicans under Obama). The vast majority of democratic senators were for the Dream Act and would be now as well. Its OK to diss Obama but please keep things in the realm of REALITY. Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The people will decide. Indeed.

BTW, the 60 vote abuse by the republicans is completely relevant to this topic because if they weren't using that option (massively more than at any time in history) the real deal Dream Act would be law. President Obama promised the Dream Act in 2008. He couldn't deliver the Dream Act because of the republican 60 vote game playing. This is what he could do. He did it. Believe me, his BASE thanks him for it and he will be JUSTLY rewarded with increased enthusiasm and VOTES.

If what Obama has done is illegal, impeach him. Otherwise, lets have an election.

Here is how the senators voted in a 2010 Dream Act vote to debate (needing 60):

http://tucsoncitizen.com/community/2010/12/18/dream-act-roll-call-vote-in-u-s-senate/

D is Democrat. R is republican. Note the DRAMATIC difference in sides, D vs. R.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[TheWalkingMan]

People are upset that Obama issued an Executive Order essentially granting a reprieve for a subset of immigrants? Was he the first president to ever issue an Executive Order relating to focusing immigration enforcement on a certain group of people. Chafed because it looks like politics during an election year? It is always about politics - from the clothing worn to the statements made or statements not made. All of these guys play politics first in order to satisfy a percentage of the people and to get re-elected. That is the goal, the brass ring and they all will do whatever they feel is necessary to win.

As far as selectively enforcing laws... that is an issue? Governments have always selectively enforced laws either based on economics (not enough police/officials to cover everything, political change etc) and why people are upset about something that has gone on for years and years surprises me.

If the selective enforcement of laws really gets under your skin then please protest this at your local level because I suspect that there are many laws which are not enforced for various reasons.

Someone above made a crack about getting illegals to vote... Voter fraud, more specifically, voter ID fraud seems to be something which looks good in headlines, gets the blood boiling, but when looked closely at turns out to be something of a miniscule issue. I found this which lays out voter fraud. http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf It was interesting. Most problems seem to be clerical related or the occasional honest mistake by an individual. BTW - the penalty for voter fraud is 5 years in jail and a USD 10k penalty per occurrence.

[koheesti]

The people will decide. Indeed.

BTW, the 60 vote abuse by the republicans is completely relevant to this topic because if they weren't using that option (massively more than at any time in history) the real deal Dream Act would be law. President Obama promised the Dream Act in 2008. He couldn't deliver the Dream Act because of the republican 60 vote game playing. This is what he could do. He did it. Believe me, his BASE thanks him for it and he will be JUSTLY rewarded with increased enthusiasm and VOTES.

If what Obama has done is illegal, impeach him. Otherwise, lets have an election.

Here is how the senators voted in a 2010 Dream Act vote to debate (needing 60):

http://tucsoncitizen...-in-u-s-senate/

D is Democrat. R is republican. Note the DRAMATIC difference in sides, D vs. R.

Your claims of blaming the Republicans fall flat when it was Democrats who are just as much to blame - if not more. When the vote was taken there weren't enough Democrats to reach the 60-vote level in the first place. They would need a few Republicans to cross over party lines. Three Republicans did just that and voted for the Dream Act. However, SIX Democrats dropped the ball and DID NOT vote for the act and it failed. It FAILED because six Democrats didn't believe in the "dream".

And please, please stop all the whiny outrage of "ABUSE!!". Just because it happened to an act you support it is all of a sudden ABUSE. When it happens to an act you oppose, it is simply how government works.

[Jingthing]

It's abuse because it is being massively OVERUSED specifically by the republicans under Obama. First time in history things have gone this way and it is not a trivial issue at all. It means they stopped Obama from governing. Why? To kick him out and block him from getting anything done for the people. That's their number one goal. Good policy is irrelevant to them. If Obama likes apple pie, they hate it.

http://tpmdc.talking...-the-senate.php

If Obama is playing hardball by using executive powers (finally, FIGHT BACK!), what would you call what the republicans in the senate have done, again, and again, and again?

Yes, his base wants a fighter. Obama did something great here, both in substance AND in politics.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Someone above made a crack about getting illegals to vote... Voter fraud, more specifically, voter ID fraud seems to be something which looks good in headlines, gets the blood boiling, but when looked closely at turns out to be something of a miniscule issue. I found this which lays out voter fraud. http://www.truthabou...erFraud.pdf It was interesting. Most problems seem to be clerical related or the occasional honest mistake by an individual. BTW - the penalty for voter fraud is 5 years in jail and a USD 10k penalty per occurrence.

from page 6:

"The most common example of the harm wrought by imprecise and inflated claims of “voter fraud” is the call for in-person photo identification requirements."

So the author believes it is harmful to ask for photo ID when voting? Fraud or no fraud, it is common sense to show ID when voting.

Then he quotes from one of his sources:

"...requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote."

3 percent comes out to millions of votes. What makes Democrats so special that they don't have or are unable to get a photo ID?

As for the fines for getting caught committing voter fraud, there are numerous videos out there that show the people at the polling stations have little interest in verifying who anyone is so the chance of getting caught is almost zero.

Will we ever know how many of the hundreds of thousands of illegals Obama's attempt to legalize will try to vote? I doubt it. I wouldn't be at all surprised though if some wacky group in California doesn't try to help them do it.

[Jingthing]

The Senate hasn't passed a budget in years and that only requires a simple majority. That means if the vote is 48-45 it would pass. Obama and Harry Reid blame others for their own failings and with the help of the MSN they'll get away with it. If we really had an unbiased press, Obama would struggle to get 42% of the vote in November.

OK, we are getting off topic here, but here is the REAL reason for failure to pass a budget. I know, way too complicated for the canned republican talking points. Sorry about that!

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

http://www.economist...ntary-procedure

Please, back to the IMMIGRATION related topic, Kay?

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[tlansford]

funny how people get so upset about other people who spent the majority of their life in the USA being allowed to stay.

OK, actually it is sad, not funny.

On a practical note, it is interesting that visitors to the US pass through customs on the way in, but not on the way out. Besides the fact that I have never seen that in another country, it means that the US never knows when any visitor leaves the country.

[Ulysses G.]

How many other countries allow illegal alliens to stay? Why should the US be any different?

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record must be returned to an airline or ship representative when departing the United States, so there is a record of when visitors leave the country. .

Edited June 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

funny how people get so upset about other people who spent the majority of their life in the USA being allowed to stay.

OK, actually it is sad, not funny.

On a practical note, it is interesting that visitors to the US pass through customs on the way in, but not on the way out. Besides the fact that I have never seen that in another country, it means that the US never knows when any visitor leaves the country.

Opponents of Obama are mostly not that upset about allowing the Dream Act eligibles to stay. They are more upset that Obama has managed to get something he wants to do and that he is going to get political credit for it from an important voting bloc -- Latino American citizen voters. Actions like this also add enthusiasm to the entire Obama base which is actually MUCH BIGGER than the natural Romney base, but the problem this time is encouraging the base to actually get out to vote. There is a lot of sympathy among the vast majority of Americans for the Dream Act eligible voters. It is radicals like the tea party types that have pushed the republican party into these ridiculously extreme right wing positions. Edited June 21, 2012 by Jingthing