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

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. Stick to the topic, please.

[Ulysses G.]

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

Actually, it is because he is undermining the constitution - once again - for political gain.

[Jingthing]

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

Actually, it is because he is undermining the constitution - once again - for political gain.

Actually, no it is not, and it's disingenuous to suggest that it is. Actually, you have presented a political talking point because the Romney supporters can't actually explicitly say they are actually not supportive of these Dream Act eligibles (even though they keep blocking passage of an actual BILL for them) for fear of losing even MORE of the Latino voting bloc and of course energizing Obama's larger natural base even more. Romney won't even say he would discontinue Obama's executive action if elected! Edited June 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Pure spin. The Dream Act is not what Obama has put in place. The Republicans voted against The Dream Act because of other things that were in it that are not in Obama's royal proclamation. One example is that illegal aliens would have gotten cheaper rates for University than American citizens under the Dream Act.

[Jingthing]

Pure spin. The Dream Act is not what Obama has put in place. The Republicans voted against The Dream Act because of other things that were in it that are not in Obama's royal proclamation. One example is that illegal aliens would have gotten cheaper rates for University than American citizens under the Dream Act.

If Romney actually thinks the Obama action is "unconstitutional" (It Is Not) why did he FAIL to say he would cancel the action upon election? Again, you are being disingenuous. I NEVER said Obama has passed the Dream Act with his executive action. What I have been talking about is taking an action to help the Dream Act eligibles in a similar way that an actually dream act passage would do, but unfortunately more temporarily. Romney CAN cancel it. If he intends to cancel, why doesn't he clearly say so? Edited June 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Why should he? Obama just pulled this cynical trick. He can wait and respond when he is sure about the exact legal ramifications of what Obama has done.

[TheWalkingMan]

If he [Romney] intends to cancel, why doesn't he clearly say so?

That is a good point... but obviously he is playing politics, as they all do.

[Scott]

A argumentative post has been removed. This is my final reminder to stay on the topic.

DO NOT attempt to bait posters with something they did or did not say.

[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.

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.

You ask which party has "abused" their right to filibuster or make a threat to filibuster in recent years. For your information a filibuster or threat of a filibuster is ALWAYS used by the minority party in the US Senate. Why would the majority party need to use it when they already have a majority?

Majority parties also have a method whereby they can not pass legislation in case you were not aware of it. The Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) sets the agenda for which bills are called for a vote. He can simply say a Republican member has informed him that the Republican Senator plans to filibuster. Senator Reid merely tables the bill and does not put it on the agenda.

He can also do this for bills that he or the administration do not agree with, such as the over 30 jobs bills that have been passed by the House of Representatives and are now languishing in the Senate dead letter file.

So, if the use of filibuster is primarily a foil of the minority party to defer or stop unfavorable legislation then it is reasonable to assume they would use it considerably more than the majority party.

The Democrats have been in the majority for the 111th and 1112th Congresses beginning on January 5, 2009, thus have had no need to use filibuster during Obama's only term in office.

Edited June 21, 2012 by chuckd

[chuckd]

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?

Not just yet.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was passed under the rules of Reconciliation by the Pelosi led Democratic House of Representatives.

In other words, the House merely "deemed" the Senate version acceptable and passed the legislation by a vote of 219-212.

The Senate could use the Reconciliation process on a federal budget and deem the House version acceptable. We would then have a budget for the first time in over three years.

Now...back to the Immigration related topic.

[tlansford]

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. .

funny that I just did a round trip and I can tell you that there is no customs control on leaving the country and no form returned on departure. While that might be due to my American passport, the other 400 or so people on the flight did not seem to have different requirements.

From personal experience, I have seen that it is dead simple for someone (like a student) to enter the US and stay. There is essentially no control. It's not that this is good/bad, it just seems unique and IMO a bit sloppy.

In Europe, it is actually beneficial to get your papers (insurance coverage, etc) and there are a variety of different means. I am not knowledgeable about the level of problems in the different EU countries facing illegal immigration, and can't comment.

Why should the US be different - it seems to me that it is already different in that it can't bring itself to build the necessary systems to manage the people coming in and out of the country in a way that is logical for the country and for the migrants. In the US society there is on one side an openness to becoming American and on the other a hostility toward foreigners who are perceived as being undeserving. IMO it is a cultural issue.

[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. .

funny that I just did a round trip and I can tell you that there is no customs control on leaving the country and no form returned on departure. While that might be due to my American passport, the other 400 or so people on the flight did not seem to have different requirements.

It is because you have an American passport. Passengers that do not have one have to provide the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record when departing the United States, so there is a record of when visitors leave the country. .

[samran]

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. .

funny that I just did a round trip and I can tell you that there is no customs control on leaving the country and no form returned on departure. While that might be due to my American passport, the other 400 or so people on the flight did not seem to have different requirements.

It is because you have an American passport. Passengers that do not have one have to provide the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record when departing the United States, so there is a record of when visitors leave the country. .

I'm in the US at the moment. No arrival cards any more, they are done online when you apply for your ETA. You get a customs form for landing, and no departure card any more that you used to have to give to the airline check in before you boarded. No doubt though, they'd be tracking my movements given I'm flying so often, and will fly out to London in a week or so.

Edited June 21, 2012 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

Big Brother is watching.

[tlansford]

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. .

funny that I just did a round trip and I can tell you that there is no customs control on leaving the country and no form returned on departure. While that might be due to my American passport, the other 400 or so people on the flight did not seem to have different requirements.

It is because you have an American passport. Passengers that do not have one have to provide the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record when departing the United States, so there is a record of when visitors leave the country. .

when and where do they collect that form?

[chuckd]

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. .

funny that I just did a round trip and I can tell you that there is no customs control on leaving the country and no form returned on departure. While that might be due to my American passport, the other 400 or so people on the flight did not seem to have different requirements.

It is because you have an American passport. Passengers that do not have one have to provide the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record when departing the United States, so there is a record of when visitors leave the country. .

when and where do they collect that form?

See post by Samran above. According to him a card system is no longer in use.

[Jingthing]

Like I said. Good policy. Good politics. Obama is shaking Romney's balance with these bold actions (gay marriage and immigration). I hope to see more! Why not a major move of marijuana decriminalization?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/06/obama_s_gay_marriage_and_immigration_moves_how_the_president_is_outfoxing_romney_.html

The president has seldom been a risk taker; he has operated within the boundaries of the possible, avoiding postures that yield no results. But he and his campaign have cleverly recognized that Romney’s slow-footedness and lack of imagination present an opportunity for them to shine in contrast. They have reversed the usual dynamic of re-election campaigns, highlighting the challenger’s stodginess while making Obama into a nimble incumbent.

[Ulysses G.]

Why not make the US a Communist utopia while he is at it? An endorsement from Slate is only convincing to hardcore lefties.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

A quotation from Slate. Why not make the US a Communist utopia while he is at it?

Come again? I don't see the connection but if that's the quality level of rebuttal from the Obama opposition, I think he can start to plan his victory party.

[Ulysses G.]

His latest cover-ups nix that and the immigration ploy is blowing up in his face.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

His latest cover-up nixes that and the immigration ploy is blowing up in his face.

Yeah sure. People will be focusing on some right wing obsession over a nothing "scandal" in congress that will come to nothing (all presidents use executive privilege); congress which is about as popular as V.D., while not focusing on the economy which for Obama is EXACTLY where he wants people not to focus. Really dumb move there. Outsmarted again. Edited June 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

The terrible economy is getting plenty of coverage as well as using executive privilege to cover up something that he claimed not to be involved in and circumventing the constitution on the immigration issue all at the same time. What a complete mess.

[koheesti]

congress which is about as popular as V.D., while not focusing on the economy which for Obama is EXACTLY where he wants people not to focus.

Why not? Isn't Obama's record on the economy a good one? Adding 800,000 newly legal workers will do wonders for the job market!

[Jingthing]

congress which is about as popular as V.D., while not focusing on the economy which for Obama is EXACTLY where he wants people not to focus.

Why not? Isn't Obama's record on the economy a good one? Adding 800,000 newly legal workers will do wonders for the job market!

That's a fair point. There's always a price but these young people are going to be good Americans.

[koheesti]

As usual, Krauthammer nails it. He reveals the criminal hypocrisy of Obama's "evolution" from being against an executive order to for it in just over a year. He debunks the "procedural discretion" claims coming from Homeland Security. While sympathizing with the humanitarian aspects of the Dream Act he gives two excellent examples of why it is an obvious mistake.

Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-amnesty-by-fiat--naked-lawlessness/2012/06/21/gJQAa5PltV_story.html

But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That’s the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself

argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.”

Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his reelection needs.

[Jingthing]

His reelection needs are important to, in my estimation, the majority of the American people.

[kerryk]

congress which is about as popular as V.D., while not focusing on the economy which for Obama is EXACTLY where he wants people not to focus.

Why not? Isn't Obama's record on the economy a good one? Adding 800,000 newly legal workers will do wonders for the job market!

That's a fair point. There's always a price but these young people are going to be good Americans.

What does it take to be a good American in this context?

[Jingthing]

congress which is about as popular as V.D., while not focusing on the economy which for Obama is EXACTLY where he wants people not to focus.

Why not? Isn't Obama's record on the economy a good one? Adding 800,000 newly legal workers will do wonders for the job market!

That's a fair point. There's always a price but these young people are going to be good Americans.

What does it take to be a good American in this context?

Google the qualifications to be eligible for the Dream Act if there was a Dream Act. These young people who have immigration issues through no fault of their own show great promise. The USA would be idiotic to boot them out.

[TheWalkingMan]

As usual, Krauthammer nails it. He reveals the criminal hypocrisy of Obama's "evolution" from being against an executive order to for it in just over a year. He debunks the "procedural discretion" claims coming from Homeland Security. While sympathizing with the humanitarian aspects of the Dream Act he gives two excellent examples of why it is an obvious mistake.

Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness

http://www.washingto...PltV_story.html

But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That’s the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself

argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.”

Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his reelection needs.

I never heard of this chap Krauthammer before but I think that he was not being 100% clear about some statements.

1 - The full quote (28 March 2011) which has been truncated, "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. And the DREAM Act is a perfect example of a law that can help fix this."

#1 Came from Town Hall http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-univision-town-hall

It looks to me that Obama was getting things ready by saying that he could be an advocate for changes in the law. 6 months later he comes out directly and says that enforcement can be prioritized which is what, I thought governments do. Sometimes its litter, sometimes its speeding etc

2 - On 28 September 2011, Obama had an interview with, what looked like to me 3 reporters and he basically reiterated that he cannot unilaterally change laws which is what he said above... he then went on to say, "What we can do is to prioritize enforcement since there are limited enforcement resources and say we're not going chasing after this young man or anybody else whose been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the dream act passed."

This was back in September and he prioritized which immigrants to go after.

#2 Came from the Daily Show dated 19 June 2012 and the clip starts at about 12 minutes and 58 seconds.

We need to always double check when bloggers, reporters, columnists etc quote a politician to make a point. Even though we may believe in what they say, we may like the way they write... we need to be vigilant in verifying their statements. Some of these people fabricate more stories than strippers or bargirls in order to keep us part of their team.

Whether or not Obama did this for reelection... big deal. All of them pander or do things that many find distasteful in order to get reelected. That is what we want, for if we didn't I think that our politics would be a lot different.

[Jingthing]

The Dream Act is good. If the US government is so dysfunctional it can't even pass something so obviously beneficial (largely due to the 60 vote need in the senate enforced by republicans more under Obama by far that at any time in history), when a president decides to take action anyway, he is a HERO. He gets political benefit from actions like this because he deserves the political benefits. Wish to see more of same.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Jingthing