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

[transam]

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Well he can't tell half of Mexico to go back home eh.

It's not half of Mexico. And no, NO president can accomplish MASS deportations, even if the will was there, and it isn't. Keep in mind right wing business interests LOVE cheap illegal labor and so do American consumers.

So the hi-so yanks approve of those who ''crept'' in but the ordinary USA joe goes out of work ?.

[Jingthing]

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Well he can't tell half of Mexico to go back home eh.

It's not half of Mexico. And no, NO president can accomplish MASS deportations, even if the will was there, and it isn't. Keep in mind right wing business interests LOVE cheap illegal labor and so do American consumers.

So the hi-so yanks approve of those who ''crept'' in but the ordinary USA joe goes out of work ?.

Don't be daft. Citizens don't want to pick fruit or work in sweatshops.

[kerryk]

I doubt if the 800,000 new Mexican Americans who are staying as a result of the Dream act thing and are supposed to go to high school and college will want to pick fruit or work in sweatshops eh?

[Jingthing]

I doubt if the 800,000 new Mexican Americans who are staying as a result of the Dream act thing and are supposed to go to high school and college will want to pick fruit or work in sweatshops eh?

No, they won't, of course. They will hopefully become citizens. Is there unfairness? Are some people stuck being illegals who shouldn't be stuck and do all dream act eligibles who may hopefully get to citizenship "deserve" it? Of course not. But governments do the best they can.

[kerryk]

I doubt if the 800,000 new Mexican Americans who are staying as a result of the Dream act thing and are supposed to go to high school and college will want to pick fruit or work in sweatshops eh?

No, they won't, of course. They will hopefully become citizens. Is there unfairness? Are some people stuck being illegals who shouldn't be stuck and do all dream act eligibles who may hopefully get to citizenship "deserve" it? Of course not. But governments do the best they can.

I'm with you. Let all the Mexicans stay. Let the minimum wage float and USA is at full employment in a few months. Nationalize all the doctors and health care and let the cards fall where they may.

[transam]

I doubt if the 800,000 new Mexican Americans who are staying as a result of the Dream act thing and are supposed to go to high school and college will want to pick fruit or work in sweatshops eh?

No, they won't, of course. They will hopefully become citizens. Is there unfairness? Are some people stuck being illegals who shouldn't be stuck and do all dream act eligibles who may hopefully get to citizenship "deserve" it? Of course not. But governments do the best they can.

Total crap. Cheap labour puts the natives out of work, same in UK, which even today the Labour Party has admitted making the mistake of opening up the borders for cheap labour from Eastern Europe when they governed. Ordinary joe is now paying the price. These folk should consentrate on making their own country better instead of milking another country.

[kerryk]

I doubt if the 800,000 new Mexican Americans who are staying as a result of the Dream act thing and are supposed to go to high school and college will want to pick fruit or work in sweatshops eh?

No, they won't, of course. They will hopefully become citizens. Is there unfairness? Are some people stuck being illegals who shouldn't be stuck and do all dream act eligibles who may hopefully get to citizenship "deserve" it? Of course not. But governments do the best they can.

Total crap. Cheap labour puts the natives out of work, same in UK, which even today the Labour Party has admitted making the mistake of opening up the borders for cheap labour from Eastern Europe when they governed. Ordinary joe is now paying the price. These folk should consentrate on making their own country better instead of milking another country.

You do know Ford is paying $3.00 per hour for assembly workers in Thailand.

[kerryk]

Transam now your supposed to tell me why Ford will make cars in the US and UK at $40 dollars an hour instead of Thailand at $3.00.

[transam]

Transam now your supposed to tell me why Ford will make cars in the US and UK at $40 dollars an hour instead of Thailand at $3.00.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerm, still thinking about it. You wold think that many multi national companies would set up shop here wouldn't you ? Why not ?. There must be a very good reason.

[kerryk]

Transam now your supposed to tell me why Ford will make cars in the US and UK at $40 dollars an hour instead of Thailand at $3.00.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerm, still thinking about it. You wold think that many multi national companies would set up shop here wouldn't you ? Why not ?. There must be a very good reason.

I believe Thailand is the largest manufacturer of light trucks in the world. And they do call the East Coast Little Detroit.

[NomadJoe]

... The obstructionist party of Mr. Rubio would never allow it. Whatever Obama is for, they are always against, even if they were for it before Obama was for it.

That, in a nut shell, is exactly it.

[transam]

Transam now your supposed to tell me why Ford will make cars in the US and UK at $40 dollars an hour instead of Thailand at $3.00.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerm, still thinking about it. You wold think that many multi national companies would set up shop here wouldn't you ? Why not ?. There must be a very good reason.

I believe Thailand is the largest manufacturer of light trucks in the world. And they do call the East Coast Little Detroit.

Because Thailand is the second biggest purchaser of trucks for their home market, so they make em. But why, as labour is cheap here, haven't all sorts of stuff moved here ?. There must be a reason.

[kerryk]

Transam now your supposed to tell me why Ford will make cars in the US and UK at $40 dollars an hour instead of Thailand at $3.00.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerm, still thinking about it. You wold think that many multi national companies would set up shop here wouldn't you ? Why not ?. There must be a very good reason.

I believe Thailand is the largest manufacturer of light trucks in the world. And they do call the East Coast Little Detroit.

Because Thailand is the second biggest purchaser of trucks for their home market, so they make em. But why, as labour is cheap here, haven't all sorts of stuff moved here ?. There must be a reason.

It would be easier to list the cars that are not made here. And the parts industry is huge. How many Burmese are in the country working? 3 million? Look at Thai Baht. US dollar and British pound.

[transam]

Think my point is, hmmmm, remember the stink about Nike paying daft money for wages in Asia and their stuff costing a fortune ?. They covered their tracks since.

Now why, as wages are very low in LOS, aren't this type of business setting up shop here.?

[rakman]

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Unfortunately, like so many things Obama has done, this policy is unconstitutional. This is nothing more than another power grab by an Executive branch department, directed by the President. It's not even an Executive Order.

He has doubled down on being the worst president ever, by ignoring the Constitution, rule of law, and his own previous statements to the contrary of his new policy.

Edited June 23, 2012 by rakman

[rakman]

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.

Here you say these young people are going to be good Americans. Some will, some won't, but they don't start off well being "accessories" to a continuing crime.

I have no problem with legal immigrants and current law allows for military volunteers to get citizenship. Illegal aliens shouldn't be given special privileges because they are illegal.

[rakman]

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 you leave the country, the airline scans your passport number upon departure along with your name of record. When you return, immigration again enters your passport number and name into the "tracking" computer.

It's funny that in the US we can track a cow from it's birth in another country, it's immigration into the US and know where it lives and died. But we can't (could with political will) track visa overstays.

Now you know why, if you live in Thailand as a visa immigrant, you have to report to the local police office every 90 days. There isn't any such policy in the US.

Edited June 23, 2012 by rakman

[Jingthing]

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Unfortunately, like so many things Obama has done, this policy is unconstitutional. This is nothing more than another power grab by an Executive branch department, directed by the President. It's not even an Executive Order.

He has doubled down on being the worst president ever, by ignoring the Constitution, rule of law, and his own previous statements to the contrary of his new policy.

It's not unconstitutional.

[rakman]

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...ng_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.

Unconstitutional policies are not good policies. Power grabs by the Executive branch should and will be challenged in court.

New York City is has banned Trans Fats, sugar drinks larger than 16 ounces and is considering not arresting marijuana users.

[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...ng_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.

Unconstitutional policies are not good policies. Power grabs by the Executive branch should and will be challenged in court.

New York City is has banned Trans Fats, sugar drinks larger than 16 ounces and is considering not arresting marijuana users.

It would have been better to pass the Dream Act. Too bad about that. Couldn't get the needed 60 votes to make it happen.

I agree with all that Mayor Bloomberg is doing. What's your point?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Please stay on the topic, which isn't about auto manufacturing in Thailand.

As I stated before, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton did similar things. Congress sets the number of people who will be allowed to immigrate to the US, the Executive branch then has discretion as to how these these numbers will be allocated by category.

After the second Gulf War, I was in Washington when the President authorized approximately 10,000 Iraqi Kurds to be resettled as refugees. The numbers came from the total allotment approved by Congress. First, the countries which had an undersubscribed number of applicants for the Green card lottery were used, second, anyone who had a close family member in the US was admitted under an existing immigrant visa (eligibility had already been established for this group). The remainder came from other categories.

If you have a immediate family member in the US, such as father, mother, sister, brother, spouse or child, you are legally eligible for resettlement in the US. The family, or the applicant, must show sufficient means to support the applicant.

Non-citizens who serve with the US Military are eligible for fast-tracking toward US citizenship. I have a friend who received US citizenship because he served with the US Military during the Vietnam war. (Now we are going back to the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon era). Quite a number of years ago, a large group of Filipinos were granted citizenship retroactively because they had served with the US Military--this was done through the Court, if I recall currectly, however the right to citizenship did not extend to their children, because the US citizen was naturalized and the children were not born or lived in the US. That takes us back to the World War II era.

Most likely, the group being allowed a free pass from deportation would be eligible for an immigrant visa. Most would have an immediate family member in the US. Most would pass the means test of becoming a public charge because they are or would have been employed or educated.

So, why wasn't the constitutionality of previous presidents challenged?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

So, why wasn't the constitutionality of previous presidents challenged?

Did they introduce these policies by presidential fiat four months before an election in order to get reelected?

Edited June 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Is there something magical about 4 months before an election that has to do with constitutionality?

Is 6 months OK with your or will 5.5 months do?

[Ulysses G.]

The number of months is not the point. Did other presidents have legislation backing their decisions or did they just instruct the government to ignore the laws that were in place?

Edited June 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

I am still waiting to hear what law has been violated.

Actions such as this one were probably a long time in the making. The INS and Homeland Security have most likely put pressure on the Executive branch to take action.

In the case of the Iraqi's who were moved from the Iraq, there was no congressional action or approval. The decision was made by the President who instructed the other bureaucratic agencies to do it. Those agencies then determined under what regulations and rules they would be admitted.

[Steely Dan]

Setting aside the politics for a moment the short term economic arguments for migrant workers are seductive, even to conservatives. Governments, especially left wing ones, tend to spend more than their tax take in providing social benefits etc. Such benefits and minimum wage style legislation mean that you will never find local workers to pick fruit. Businesses also like temporary workers on low wages as the lack of red tape and worker benefits allow them to make a profit.

There are two problems with the above. Firstly companies become dependent on a permanent supply of migrant workers to make a profit instead of lobbying government to cut taxes and red tape to allow them to be profitable without. Now we add to the mix calls to grant citizenship to the children of immigrants. This is all well and good but these children when eligible to full citizen rights and benefits are themselves no longer fruit pickers and as they age they will add to the social welfare costs of the nation leading to a vicious spiral where only by importing ever larger numbers of migrant workers can the economy continue to function.

This is just another aspect of the Ponzi scheme which is in place and will continue until total collapse when the disappearance of benefits will attract an exodus leaving for the door and sunnier climes.

[Ulysses G.]

The decision was made by the President who instructed the other bureaucratic agencies to do it. Those agencies then determined under what regulations and rules they would be admitted.

Your question was "why wasn't the constitutionality of previous presidents challenged" and my guess is that it was because previous presidents were trying to act within the law instead of circumventing it..

Edited June 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Again, what law is he circumventing?

[Ulysses G.]

The laws against illegal immigration obviously.

[Scott]

They are simply being exempted from a deportation action.

Neither the Executive branch nor the Congress invited them to enter the country illegal. As a matter of fact, a large number of them would have had no say in entering the US by virtue of their age.

Currently, if there is an immigrant petition filed on behalf of someone they must return to their own country for the interview. That by the way is not a law, it is a regulation. As an immigrant they and their family must show sufficient funds to overcome the presumption that they will become a public charge (end up on welfare/social security/food stamps etc.)

What do you think the chances are of an Iranian or North Korean returning to their country of origin to be interviewed by a Department of State Consul officer? It can't be done. The applicant then applies for refugee status and they will be resettled in the US because the agreement with the UN and other countries calls for keeping families together and not internationalizing them--with 1/2 in the US and 1/2 in Australia for example.

There has been no amnesty given, there has been no change in the law. The only difference is who and how the law will be enforced and that is a determination made by the relevant bureaucratic entities, unless Congress want to pass a law that all illegal immigrants will be subject to deportation.