Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[Chicog]

A particular phrase, "none of the funds," appears in the bill more than 450 times. In each case, Congress used those words to dictate how money can and cannot be spent.

I particularly liked the way they said "none of the funds" except for the $1,000 they awarded themselves for a new car allowance.

“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives to make any payments from any Members’ Representational Allowance for the leasing of a vehicle, excluding mobile district offices, in an aggregate amount that exceeds $1,000 for the vehicle in any month.”

However, with immigration, I understand that because INS collects its own revenue, Congress cannot dictate how it spends it. They can, however, dictate how much it gets from them, so the logical solution is of course.....

Oh hang on.

I guess the expansion of "Citizens United" was worth selling out for.

IMMIGRATION:

The bill only funds the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees most immigration policy, until February. But negotiators gave new money for immigration programs at other federal agencies. There's $948 million for the Department of Health and Human Service's unaccompanied children program -- an $80 million increase. The program provides health and education services to the young migrants. The department also gets $14 million to help school districts absorbing new immigrant students. And the State Department would get $260 million to assist Central American countries from where of the immigrant children are coming.

[Publicus]

Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision.

Considering what is going on in Paris, as you say, makes me want to pursue and deport every illegal alien even more vigorously. And perhaps rescind and revoke the green cards of a few million more.

The Justice Department in Washington which has jurisdiction says the US has only the resources to deport 400,000 undocumented immigrants each year.

Even if a Republican president were to be elected and decided to increase resources to deport 1 million a year, we'd all be 11 years older before the current crop of undocumented immigrants would all be shipped out through the revolving door border with Mexico.

I'd guess advocates of a mass deportation would consider 400,000 annually a good start, or at the least a respectable one, but even 400,000 of 11 million takes a long and expensive, disruptive time. A million a year would be a fairly noticeable development across the Untied States. Taxes might even get increased to hire more police and buy more equipment to include vehicles, build more jails.

Imagine anyway all the police out there across the country rounding up busloads and truckloads of illegal immigrants -- immigration police, US marshals, local police, county police, state police, private investigators and private security police....buses, trucks, vans coming and going, police, police, police.....

Edited January 11, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

If they are ILLEGAL immigrants, they should not be in the country by definition. They will be taking jobs from low-skilled Americans if legalized. They should have been stopped long ago, but better late than never.

At least you seem to acknowledge that legal immigrants in the US are not a burden to society, in contrast to the misperceptions you have concerning the undocumented aliens you are so aggressive about.

So apparently you share the view legal immigrants do not collect food stamps, cash assistance, strain hospital emergency rooms and other medical facilities or resources, don't take jobs from Americans, are not drug lords or criminals, are not the economically poor or low class arrivals from foreign countries that undocumented aliens in your view are, don't kill US border guards in shootouts etc etc...that legal immigrants to the US are not these things or worse.

That then would be good, or do I overstate your relatively positive view of legal immigrants.....

Oh, that old "undocumented immigrants" to avoid admitting they are ILLEGAL." I can't remember which left wingnut first thought up that phrase.

You are a lowly follower of the documented numbskulls.

[chuckd]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

[Chicog]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

[zydeco]

There really is no need to deport illegals actively. Simply stop allowing them to work, fine employers, stop giving them freebies, such as taxpayer ID numbers they can then use to get Earned Income Tax Credit from taxpayers (the tax "credit" is actually a payment in cash), stop educating them, stop giving them access to medical services. In short, starve them out. They'll go home. Some will even beg to go home.

Edited January 11, 2015 by zydeco

[zydeco]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

Personally, I believe in family unification. All these anchor babies should follow their illegal parents home.

[chuckd]

A particular phrase, "none of the funds," appears in the bill more than 450 times. In each case, Congress used those words to dictate how money can and cannot be spent.

I particularly liked the way they said "none of the funds" except for the $1,000 they awarded themselves for a new car allowance.

“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives to make any payments from any Members’ Representational Allowance for the leasing of a vehicle, excluding mobile district offices, in an aggregate amount that exceeds $1,000 for the vehicle in any month.”

However, with immigration, I understand that because INS collects its own revenue, Congress cannot dictate how it spends it. They can, however, dictate how much it gets from them, so the logical solution is of course.....

Oh hang on.

I guess the expansion of "Citizens United" was worth selling out for.

IMMIGRATION:

The bill only funds the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees most immigration policy, until February. But negotiators gave new money for immigration programs at other federal agencies. There's $948 million for the Department of Health and Human Service's unaccompanied children program -- an $80 million increase. The program provides health and education services to the young migrants. The department also gets $14 million to help school districts absorbing new immigrant students. And the State Department would get $260 million to assist Central American countries from where of the immigrant children are coming.

I suppose you have a point in this mish-mash somewhere, but I will only address this part of it;

"However, with immigration, I understand that because INS collects its own revenue, Congress cannot dictate how it spends it. They can, however, dictate how much it gets from them, so the logical solution is of course....."

The "None of the Funds" clause could easily be expanded to include any funds collected from various agency fees in the prohibited use category.

This would be an easy fix and one that has already been discussed in the media.

Congress controls the purse strings...NOT Homeland Security.

[chuckd]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

What my particular favors are has absolutely no bearing on the written law.

I would favor not having to make a 220 kilometer round trip every 90 days to report my address to Immigration in Thailand, but I do it because that's the law.

Which part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

"Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks."

Edited January 11, 2015 by chuckd

[NeverSure]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

Citizenship by being born in the US is a law that's not part of the Constitution. Laws can easily be changed.

The Idea that ILLEGALS sneak into the county to have what's called an "anchor baby" should be stopped. Only children born to citizens should be citizens.

In the interim I would deport the parents. I would make it too expensive for anyone to hire an illegal. I would put that onus on the employer who would need to have documentation on file.

As they say, where there's a will there's a way. The US lacks the will.

EDIT. The only good news is that most of these people are Catholic and not Islamists and they learn the language and try to fit in.

[Publicus]

There really is no need to deport illegals actively. Simply stop allowing them to work, fine employers, stop giving them freebies, such as taxpayer ID numbers they can then use to get Earned Income Tax Credit from taxpayers (the tax "credit" is actually a payment in cash), stop educating them, stop giving them access to medical services. In short, starve them out. They'll go home. Some will even beg to go home.

The national resources to accomplish this would be how much in funds, enforcement personnel, time period and the like.....and what number of affected immigrants could we expect to, humm, as Willard Mitt Romney said, self-deport.

I know you are not the government with researchers or some private voluntary organization with the same, but there must be some estimates out there by some group or organizations that have developed some kind of data concerning this particular and peculiar approach.

And the cost both human and financial in increased illegal activities associated with the new policies of denial, deprivation and self-deportation......

Edited January 11, 2015 by Publicus

[lannarebirth]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

Having your children born in the US is one of the easier ways to acquire Permanent Residency LEGALLY. It is a mystery to me that millions of undocumented immigrants don't choose this legal pathway.

[NeverSure]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

Having your children born in the US is one of the easier ways to acquire Permanent Residency LEGALLY. It is a mystery to me that millions of undocumented immigrants don't choose this legal pathway.

Do you mean to say that people who are in the US ILLEGALLY and have a child born are doing it LEGALLY?

Or did I miss something?

[Chicog]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

What my particular favors are has absolutely no bearing on the written law.

I would favor not having to make a 220 kilometer round trip every 90 days to report my address to Immigration in Thailand, but I do it because that's the law.

Which part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

"Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks."

Jeez Chuck I asked you for an opinion not a legal ruling.

[lannarebirth]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

Having your children born in the US is one of the easier ways to acquire Permanent Residency LEGALLY. It is a mystery to me that millions of undocumented immigrants don't choose this legal pathway.

Do you mean to say that people who are in the US ILLEGALLY and have a child born are doing it LEGALLY?

Or did I miss something?

The risk most seem unwilling to take is that the immigrant visa based on immediate family having citizenship must be applied for through the US Embassy in their country of citizenship. In other words from outside the US.

[Ulysses G.]

I can't speak for Ulysses, but if you want to ask me that question, the answer would be unequivocal support for LEGAL immigration.

I have never questioned the need or importance of legal immigration. These people are following the laws of the land to get here and deserve the chance to live as they wish.

Those that follow the laws and enter legally are certainly welcome. Having said that, if some overstay their visas, they then become illegal and, as is done in Thailand, they should be deported when discovered.

Following the laws is really not difficult to comprehend for most folks.

Of course. I agree with everything that you have said here and I don't understand why anyone would try to spin it otherwise. Legal immigrants are playing by the rules and deserve any help that they need to succeed as long as they follow the law. It is plain old common sense.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Do you accept that for children that were born in the US, the priority should be to legalise their parents rather than deport them?

Or are you in favour of breaking up families to blindly serve the law?

Having your children born in the US is one of the easier ways to acquire Permanent Residency LEGALLY. It is a mystery to me that millions of undocumented immigrants don't choose this legal pathway.

Do you mean to say that people who are in the US ILLEGALLY and have a child born are doing it LEGALLY?

Or did I miss something?

The risk most seem unwilling to take is that the immigrant visa based on immediate family having citizenship must be applied for through the US Embassy in their country of citizenship. In other words from outside the US.

The difficulty with this situation is that the parents would generally need to leave the child in the US. If the child is with them, then the embassy can deny the parents a visa. The child is still eligible to enter the US, but not the parents.

[up-country_sinclair]

There really is no need to deport illegals actively. Simply stop allowing them to work, fine employers, stop giving them freebies, such as taxpayer ID numbers they can then use to get Earned Income Tax Credit from taxpayers (the tax "credit" is actually a payment in cash), stop educating them, stop giving them access to medical services. In short, starve them out. They'll go home. Some will even beg to go home.

This sort of knee-jerk, tea party response to complex issues is why the GOP needs to wrestle back control from the fringe. What do you think the long term costs to American communities would be if suddenly the government decided to stop educating the children or providing access to medical services. It would be chaos.

And by the way, once they've "begged to go home", who is going to do the jobs they were doing?

Edited January 11, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[Scott]

Please keep the discussion civil. Address the post and not the poster.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[up-country_sinclair]

Lots of talk on this thread about not funding the Department of Homeland Security because of the president's executive action. Considering what's happening in Paris at the moment, that clearly wouldn't be a prudent decision.

The Republicans can fund it without any problem.

They simply have to use the "None of the funds" clause and pass the spending bill funding everything they think should be funded.

You really need to get better educated on how laws are written and passed in the US. I've recently offered you a couple of tutorial civics lessons, but (quite frankly) it's not my responsibility to relieve you of your ignorance.

However, I will not leave you with something that is likely your speed:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Government-Politics/dp/1592578535/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420946078&sr=8-1&keywords=US+civics

Some of our posters try to cover up their lack of intelligence with sarcasm. You, sir, have mastered that art.

The recently passed and enacted CROmnibus spending bill had more than 450 instances of that exact phrase being used.

It is a specific phrase that has been used in legislation for years detailing the exact instructions issued by Congress on the expenditure of government funds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Congress can stop Obama's immigration action

BY BYRON YORK | DECEMBER 15, 2014 | 12:17 PM

All money spent by the federal government is under the ultimate control of Congress. If they choose, lawmakers can issue exquisitely detailed instructions on how federal dollars are spent. For proof, look no further than the 1,695-page spending bill passed by Congress over the weekend.

A particular phrase, "none of the funds," appears in the bill more than 450 times. In each case, Congress used those words to dictate how money can and cannot be spent.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-congress-can-stop-obamas-immigration-action/article/2557399

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The linked article goes on to provide instances of the use of the None of the Funds clause, providing this specific example:

"None of the funds available to the Farm Service Agency shall be used to close Farm Service Agency county offices," the bill says. In addition, "none of the funds available to the Farm Service Agency shall be used to permanently relocate county-based employees that would result in an office with two or fewer employees without prior notification and approval of the Committee on Appropriations."

That's pretty specific. The Agriculture Department can't close Farm Service Agencies or reorganize them, if the result is an office with fewer than three employees, unless specifically approved by Congress. That's using the power of the purse to dictate precisely what a government agency can do."

Perhaps I am not the one needing some education around here.

Ugh. You've completely missed the point.

You wrote that it could be done "simply" and "without any problem", but nothing could be further from the truth. There was never going to be anything simple about it and it was always going to be problematic.

Senate Republicans don't have the votes to counter a Democratic filibuster much less a presidential veto. Serious and rational members of the GOP leadership know that their only hope is through the courts.

Or maybe you want the GOP to shutdown the government again? You know, because it worked so well the last few times.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/house-gops-immigration-push-faces-split-with-senate-114140.html?hp=rc1_4

[chuckd]

You have changed the subject. We were talking about the MECHANICS of writing a bill using the None of the Funds clause, not about the politics involved with PASSING a bill.

The "simply" and "without a problem" phrases were explicitly referring to the use of the None of the Funds clause in funding Homeland Security during the upcoming funding resolution.

The politics were never an issue until you changed the subject.

The matter is closed from my end. You may keep dancing on the point of the needle if you wish.

[45slap]

You mean third; George W holds first place.

[up-country_sinclair]

So much for 'simply" and "without a problem".

The administration has announced it will veto the bill from the House, but the GOP doesn't have 60 votes in the Senate anyway.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/white-house-threatens-veto-house-gop-immigration-bill-114193.html?hp=c1_3

Seems clear that it's going to be quite difficult and fraught with problems.

When is the GOP going to stand up to these hyper-partisan knuckleheads? The president won this round and there is nothing (practical) they can do about it. Of course they could shut down the government again, but this has repeatedly been proven to be a losing proposition for the GOP. They need to resign themselves to the reality of the situation and let this make it's way through the courts.

[Ulysses G.]

You have changed the subject. We were talking about the MECHANICS of writing a bill using the None of the Funds clause, not about the politics involved with PASSING a bill.

You were indeed. Seems like a pretty easy concept to understand, if one wants to.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

You have changed the subject. We were talking about the MECHANICS of writing a bill using the None of the Funds clause, not about the politics involved with PASSING a bill.

You were indeed. Seems like a pretty easy concept to understand, if one wants to.

And some people can't just "simply" drop their own mistakes "without a problem".

[up-country_sinclair]

Reality is starting to set in and it's going to be anything but simple to get any kind of DHS funding bill passed before the 2/27 deadline. So much for basing serious policy decisions on what's written by the Washington Examiner editorial board.

In fact,

Many Republicans fear the Senate will come back with a ‘clean’ funding bill, with no immigration language attached.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/immigration-house-114278.html#ixzz3Ot8HS5Zg

[Chicog]

Meanwhile....

[Ulysses G.]

Historical comparison A average of polls:

President Obama has averaged an approval rating of 48% through his first nearly six years in office, which has dropped his average approval below Richard Nixon (49.1%) and George W. Bush (49.4%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Edited January 16, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

the presidents actions also violate the 14th Amendment which provides equal protection of the law to all citizens. The president arbitrarily deciding to enforce some laws and not others could put other third parties at risk they would not have if the law had been faithfully applied.

whatever he signed or however he decided to take this action, it is in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states...he (The President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

The new congress was sworn in nearly a month ago, and I was hoping for an update on the impeachment proceedings. The president did, after all, violate not only the 14th amendment but also Article II, Section 3, right? But for some reason I haven't seen anything in the news about it. How can this be? Surely we must be knee-deep in a Constitutional crisis that is tearing away at the very fabric of our revered Republic.

Maybe our resident Constitutional scholars could enlighten us.