Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[JDGRUEN]

IT IS NOT SPORT to Americans ...

I bet you wouldn't mind him running over the 14th ammendment....one of the bits that you probably don't like....

You comment is outrageous - showing your ignorance. Any and all parts of the Constitution and the Amendments can be altered if done in the proper process - done by the will of the people - done by the elected representatives. The one small part of the 14th. Amendment that is dysfunctional is the part a Federal Court wrongly interpreted many years ago to allow birthright citizenship.

Conservative Americans do not want to take away rights from anyone - including the right to freedom of speech for everyone.

On thing is clear - there is no universal right to enter America and live there. Those who broke the law to enter and stay in the U.S. despite what obama just illegally did will see in due course that they will be forced to leave. This unconstitutional act will not stand.

[chuckd]

Maybe she means the bible belters build an ark for them all?

In any case, with people like Palin in the GOP's corner, who needs enemies??

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

You're wrong.

Palin never said this. Your using it as a quote is disingenuous at the very least.

The comedian Tina Fey used it in a skit on Saturday Night Live.

[chuckd]

IT IS NOT SPORT to Americans ...

I bet you wouldn't mind him running over the 14th ammendment....one of the bits that you probably don't like....

There are no plans or legal actions being taken to deport naturalized or native born US citizens.

If you know of any, please let us know.

It's all those that gained entry to the US by illegal means who are in question here. Nowhere are they covered by the 14th Amendment.

[samran]

Maybe she means the bible belters build an ark for them all?

In any case, with people like Palin in the GOP's corner, who needs enemies??

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

You're wrong.

Palin never said this. Your using it as a quote is disingenuous at the very least.

The comedian Tina Fey used it in a skit on Saturday Night Live.

Of course she didn't. I know it was a Tina Fey line. 'Most' people know it is a Tina Fey line.

But Palin's line about sending them back on boats, if true, plays up to the idiocy.

I mean, really, I know the Rio Grande demarcates certain points of the border. But boats? I've waded across it many times with it being waist deep at alot of points around big bend national park......

[chuckd]

Maybe she means the bible belters build an ark for them all?

In any case, with people like Palin in the GOP's corner, who needs enemies??

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

You're wrong.

Palin never said this. Your using it as a quote is disingenuous at the very least.

The comedian Tina Fey used it in a skit on Saturday Night Live.

Of course she didn't. I know it was a Tina Fey line. 'Most' people know it is a Tina Fey line.

But Palin's line about sending them back on boats, if true, plays up to the idiocy.

I mean, really, I know the Rio Grande demarcates certain points of the border. But boats? I've waded across it many times with it being waist deep at alot of points around big bend national park......

I expect you would be very surprised at how many people actually believe Palin said that.

For instance, the way you said it would have indicated you, too, believe she said it. "Most" people really don't know that much.

Yes, the Rio Grande can be waded across at points in the Big Bend. You ever been to Terlingua? If so, that is the only place to get a cold drink between the river and Marfa.

Not likely very many people are going to walk out of the Big Bend area.

[NeverSure]

Why doesn't Obama understand the word "illegal?"

[zydeco]

All these guys who are so enthusiastic about executive orders and prosecutorial discretion, well, fine. Okay with me. Maybe the next president, after reversing Obama's immigration executive order, will also have a different notion, say, about prosecuting people who don't pay taxes. Just use prosecutorial discretion and instruct the IRS that they can no longer conduct audits or file charges for tax evasion. Poof! Instant tax cut and there is nothing anybody can do to block it. I like this prosecutorial discretion stuff already. When my side elects a president, we can just enforce the law against whomever we please and excuse our own supporters. Sounds great!

[chuckd]

Why doesn't Obama understand the word "illegal?"

What's really hilarious are his words at the outset of his announcements, which contradict what he claims later.

He claims those with a criminal past or who have broken the law are not covered by his prosecutorial discretion.

Yet everybody he is trying to protect from deportation is in the country illegally, thereby becoming disqualified from protection due to their whereabouts.

If they are in the country and subject to deportation, they have already committed a felony.

Ipso, fatso...case closed.

[samran]

Maybe she means the bible belters build an ark for them all?

In any case, with people like Palin in the GOP's corner, who needs enemies??

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

You're wrong.

Palin never said this. Your using it as a quote is disingenuous at the very least.

The comedian Tina Fey used it in a skit on Saturday Night Live.

Of course she didn't. I know it was a Tina Fey line. 'Most' people know it is a Tina Fey line.

But Palin's line about sending them back on boats, if true, plays up to the idiocy.

I mean, really, I know the Rio Grande demarcates certain points of the border. But boats? I've waded across it many times with it being waist deep at alot of points around big bend national park......

I expect you would be very surprised at how many people actually believe Palin said that.

For instance, the way you said it would have indicated you, too, believe she said it. "Most" people really don't know that much.

Yes, the Rio Grande can be waded across at points in the Big Bend. You ever been to Terlingua? If so, that is the only place to get a cold drink between the river and Marfa.

Not likely very many people are going to walk out of the Big Bend area.

Must admit, I had to google it. Their Chilli festival looks good.

Went over for dinner to Boquillas del Carmen once. That whole area is one of my most favourite parts of the world.

Just to be clear. I think this whole debate has been needlessly politicised. By whoever. By both sides. I'm not going to cast a stone on that. Plently of countries, including arguably more the more chauvanistic and nationalistic one you and I both live in have sensible ways of dealing with the issue. The US can be smarter on this issue. Much much smarter.

[thailiketoo]

Must admit, I had to google it. Their Chilli festival looks good.

Went over for dinner to Boquillas del Carmen once. That whole area is one of my most favourite parts of the world.

Just to be clear. I think this whole debate has been needlessly politicised. By whoever. By both sides. I'm not going to cast a stone on that. Plently of countries, including arguably more the more chauvanistic and nationalistic one you and I both live in have sensible ways of dealing with the issue. The US can be smarter on this issue. Much much smarter.

Maybe America could rent an island for the illegals. Call it Christmas island or something cheery like that?

Or maybe send them to Cambodia I hear some very civilized countries do that.

Edited November 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Chicog]

Must admit, I had to google it. Their Chilli festival looks good.

Went over for dinner to Boquillas del Carmen once. That whole area is one of my most favourite parts of the world.

Just to be clear. I think this whole debate has been needlessly politicised. By whoever. By both sides. I'm not going to cast a stone on that. Plently of countries, including arguably more the more chauvanistic and nationalistic one you and I both live in have sensible ways of dealing with the issue. The US can be smarter on this issue. Much much smarter.

Maybe America could rent an island for the illegals. Call it Christmas island or something cheery like that?

Maybe you could call it "Ellis Island"?

And you could put up a plaque that says " "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (except the Mexicans)".

[chuckd]

Not all is peace and tranquility on the blue side of US politics.

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

Democratic Senators Come Out Against Obama’s Immigration Order

4:17 PM 11/21/2014

ALEX PAPPAS

At least four Democratic senators say they oppose President Obama’s executive order stopping the deportation of five million illegal immigrants.

“Our immigration system is broken, and I support a comprehensive plan to fix it, but executive orders aren’t the way to do it,” said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

“I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job, but the president shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own,” said Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly.

Article follows here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/21/democratic-senators-come-out-against-obamas-immigration-order/

[thailiketoo]

Maybe you could call it "Ellis Island"?

And you could put up a plaque that says " "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (except the Mexicans)".

Ellis Island opened in 1892 as a federal immigration station, a purpose it served for more than 60 years (it closed in 1954). Millions of newly arrived immigrants passed through the station during that time–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.

Modern times demand modern solutions. Our allies; those forward thinking people from down under just signed a deal a couple of weeks ago. The Australian immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has signed a memorandum of understanding in Phnom Penh that cements a plan for refugees who sought Australia’s protection to be ultimately resettled in Cambodia instead.

Obams should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

I'm the first to admit when another country has a good idea. And the Aussies have a winner as explained below.

“As part of this commitment, Australia will bear the direct costs of the arrangement, including initial support to refugees, and relevant capacity building for Cambodia to ensure it has the appropriate resources to receive and integrate the refugees successfully.” It said the deal did not breach the refugee convention."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/australia-signs-refugee-deal-cambodia

[chuckd]

Must admit, I had to google it. Their Chilli festival looks good.

Went over for dinner to Boquillas del Carmen once. That whole area is one of my most favourite parts of the world.

Just to be clear. I think this whole debate has been needlessly politicised. By whoever. By both sides. I'm not going to cast a stone on that. Plently of countries, including arguably more the more chauvanistic and nationalistic one you and I both live in have sensible ways of dealing with the issue. The US can be smarter on this issue. Much much smarter.

Maybe America could rent an island for the illegals. Call it Christmas island or something cheery like that?

Maybe you could call it "Ellis Island"?

And you could put up a plaque that says " "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (except the Mexicans)".

We don't need Ellis Island. We have JFK, LAX, DFW, TSP and a host of other airports that welcome legal immigrants.

It's the illegal immigrants that many oppose.

[metisdead]

An off topic baiting post has been removed.

[Chicog]

Obams <sic> should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

Personally I can't say I'm for it or against it. And it is, after all, only a stop gap with no real permanence.

What I can say is that it's pitiful that so many administrations have passed without any successful attempt to agree immigration reform.

Whether it's right or wrong, at least Obama is *trying* to do something.

Maybe you should ask why Boehner has consistently refused to put an Immigration bill for a vote when even some of his own party would have voted for it, and it probably would have passed.

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

[chuckd]

Obams <sic> should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

Personally I can't say I'm for it or against it. And it is, after all, only a stop gap with no real permanence.

What I can say is that it's pitiful that so many administrations have passed without any successful attempt to agree immigration reform.

Whether it's right or wrong, at least Obama is *trying* to do something.

Maybe you should ask why Boehner has consistently refused to put an Immigration bill for a vote when even some of his own party would have voted for it, and it probably would have passed.

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

I don't think everybody is in the same loop you are.

Why not let us know why the Republican led House has not taken up the Senate Bill?

[zydeco]

An immigration bill hasn't come up for a vote, because the constituents don't want new laws. They want the existing laws enforced. Immigration laws do not exist for the benefit of the immigrant or to make people in Mexico happy or sad. Immigration laws are supposed to benefit the existing citizens of the US. A majority of Americans realize that giving away medicaid, education, social security, and displacing citizen workers is not in most Americans' best interest. This is why immigration does not come up for a vote. It's why it didn't come up for a vote when Democrats held both the House and the Senate in Obama's first two years.

Edited November 22, 2014 by zydeco

[thailiketoo]

Obams <sic> should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

Personally I can't say I'm for it or against it. And it is, after all, only a stop gap with no real permanence.

What I can say is that it's pitiful that so many administrations have passed without any successful attempt to agree immigration reform.

Whether it's right or wrong, at least Obama is *trying* to do something.

Maybe you should ask why Boehner has consistently refused to put an Immigration bill for a vote when even some of his own party would have voted for it, and it probably would have passed.

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

The share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

The immigrants want a free ride. It simply costs less to ride them in Cambodia. Hence Australia and my idea of sending them to South East Asia.

The immigrants will vote for the party with the best promise of them not having to work. 80% if welfare recipients vote democratic. So Obama wants more welfare recipients that's not rocket science.

[mania]

Having gone through the long (& very expensive in our case)

process of gaining my wife her US temp residence, 2 year green card, then 10 year green card,

then US citizenship in her 3rd year.... We would feel quite cheated if something like this

was slipped in especially considering the motive for doing so.

Let's face it there has always been tons of illegals & tons of folks who would like

to circumnavigate the laws of US immigration. Why should this be any different/allowed?

Edited November 22, 2014 by mania

[samran]

Maybe you could call it "Ellis Island"?

And you could put up a plaque that says " "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (except the Mexicans)".

Ellis Island opened in 1892 as a federal immigration station, a purpose it served for more than 60 years (it closed in 1954). Millions of newly arrived immigrants passed through the station during that time–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.

Modern times demand modern solutions. Our allies; those forward thinking people from down under just signed a deal a couple of weeks ago. The Australian immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has signed a memorandum of understanding in Phnom Penh that cements a plan for refugees who sought Australia’s protection to be ultimately resettled in Cambodia instead.

Obams should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

I'm the first to admit when another country has a good idea. And the Aussies have a winner as explained below.

“As part of this commitment, Australia will bear the direct costs of the arrangement, including initial support to refugees, and relevant capacity building for Cambodia to ensure it has the appropriate resources to receive and integrate the refugees successfully.” It said the deal did not breach the refugee convention."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/australia-signs-refugee-deal-cambodia

You are mixing two narratives here.

The Australian situation is about refugees. It certainly works as deterrent (an inhumane one) but I'm of the opinon it has helped slowed people seeking refuge in Australia by boat.

We are also talking about relatively small numbers. Thousands per year. Not Tens or Hundreds of Thousands like in the US. I think the logistics of what you are proposing won't be feasible. Not to mention locking up without trail citizens of your neighbouring country. The best you can do is send them home if caught. People seeking refugee status, you can't send them home if they are found by the UN.

You are talking about coming by boat vs the ability to come overland (unless you are Sarah Palin).

So you are comparing apples and oranges (refugees vs economic migrants). How you process them is necessarily different.

Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago.

But I'll admit, it is a small number compared to the US.

While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque.

The clearest parallel I can find here in Thailand. Relatively prosperous. Poor neighbours. A need for low skilled menial workers in key industries. We are talking hundereds of thousands if not millions of illegal entrants.

What has Thailand done? Implemented a migrant labour scheme. A chance to get legal and work permits. No path to citizenship or PR under this scheme. People come over the border illegally. Once or twice a year labour offices open up to registration, they go back to their home countries temporarily to get passports under the scheme, they re-enter and given visas and 2 year renewable work permits.

They need a thai employer to sponser them. It isn't hard (I sponser our burmese maid). They pay an annual insurance fee for medical care. If they earn enought they pay taxes.

They don't live in shadows. It is a win win. As an example, my maid has said she's going back to Burma in 2 years after being here about 12 years. She's built a house. She's going home.

Seriously, this issue doesn't have to be hard to sort out at all.

[JDGRUEN]

Maybe she means the bible belters build an ark for them all?

In any case, with people like Palin in the GOP's corner, who needs enemies??

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

"I can see Russia from my house!!"

You're wrong.

Palin never said this. Your using it as a quote is disingenuous at the very least.

The comedian Tina Fey used it in a skit on Saturday Night Live.

Of course she didn't. I know it was a Tina Fey line. 'Most' people know it is a Tina Fey line.

But Palin's line about sending them back on boats, if true, plays up to the idiocy.

I mean, really, I know the Rio Grande demarcates certain points of the border. But boats? I've waded across it many times with it being waist deep at alot of points around big bend national park......

I expect you would be very surprised at how many people actually believe Palin said that.

For instance, the way you said it would have indicated you, too, believe she said it. "Most" people really don't know that much.

Yes, the Rio Grande can be waded across at points in the Big Bend. You ever been to Terlingua? If so, that is the only place to get a cold drink between the river and Marfa.

Not likely very many people are going to walk out of the Big Bend area.

Palin didn't make any of the statements posted here about boats, beaches, round em up or whatever that has been posted on this thread... but the foolish and the want to be foolish believe it - part of the Liberal belief system... Recently it was noted that years ago Palin correctly predicted what Putin would do with regards to Ukraine and was chided for it and obama was applauded for it -- obama was 100% wrong and is excused for it.

[thailiketoo]

Ellis Island opened in 1892 as a federal immigration station, a purpose it served for more than 60 years (it closed in 1954). Millions of newly arrived immigrants passed through the station during that time–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.

Modern times demand modern solutions. Our allies; those forward thinking people from down under just signed a deal a couple of weeks ago. The Australian immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has signed a memorandum of understanding in Phnom Penh that cements a plan for refugees who sought Australia’s protection to be ultimately resettled in Cambodia instead.

Obams should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

I'm the first to admit when another country has a good idea. And the Aussies have a winner as explained below.

“As part of this commitment, Australia will bear the direct costs of the arrangement, including initial support to refugees, and relevant capacity building for Cambodia to ensure it has the appropriate resources to receive and integrate the refugees successfully.” It said the deal did not breach the refugee convention."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/australia-signs-refugee-deal-cambodia

You are mixing two narratives here.

The Australian situation is about refugees. It certainly works as deterrent (an inhumane one) but I'm of the opinon it has helped slowed people seeking refuge in Australia by boat.

We are also talking about relatively small numbers. Thousands per year. Not Tens or Hundreds of Thousands like in the US. I think the logistics of what you are proposing won't be feasible. Not to mention locking up without trail citizens of your neighbouring country. The best you can do is send them home if caught. People seeking refugee status, you can't send them home if they are found by the UN.

You are talking about coming by boat vs the ability to come overland (unless you are Sarah Palin).

So you are comparing apples and oranges (refugees vs economic migrants). How you process them is necessarily different.

Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago.

But I'll admit, it is a small number compared to the US.

While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque.

The clearest parallel I can find here in Thailand. Relatively prosperous. Poor neighbours. A need for low skilled menial workers in key industries. We are talking hundereds of thousands if not millions of illegal entrants.

What has Thailand done? Implemented a migrant labour scheme. A chance to get legal and work permits. No path to citizenship or PR under this scheme. People come over the border illegally. Once or twice a year labour offices open up to registration, they go back to their home countries temporarily to get passports under the scheme, they re-enter and given visas and 2 year renewable work permits.

They need a thai employer to sponser them. It isn't hard (I sponser our burmese maid). They pay an annual insurance fee for medical care. If they earn enought they pay taxes.

They don't live in shadows. It is a win win. As an example, my maid has said she's going back to Burma in 2 years after being here about 12 years. She's built a house. She's going home.

Seriously, this issue doesn't have to be hard to sort out at all.

1. You are an Aussie commenting about American illegal aliens entering the USA which you know little about.

A. By boat from Cuba and Haiti hundreds of thousands.

B Refugees coming to the USA from South America not Mexico (the latest surge) hundreds of thousands under the same circumstances of as refugees anywhere.

C. You wrote, " While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque." The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent). See, thats the problem when you write about stuff and don't have a clue what you are writing about. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

You wrote, "Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago."

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural/industrial jobs. A U.S. employer,a U.S. agent as described in the regulations,or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf.

I could take apart the rest of your post but this is getting long.

Sorry Samran but you don't have a clue about USA immigration policies and should not be writing about them.

The Dems want the immigrants because they vote Democratic and they do so because the majority of them draw some form of government benefits. Sorry but thats the truth.

If Australia sends refugees to Cambodia they won't have a problem like the Americans do with refugees from Latin America, Haiti and Cuba. If you don't eventually you will face the same situation that Florida faces from the boats landing on the shore of that State.

[Chicog]

An immigration bill hasn't come up for a vote, because the constituents don't want new laws. They want the existing laws enforced. Immigration laws do not exist for the benefit of the immigrant or to make people in Mexico happy or sad. Immigration laws are supposed to benefit the existing citizens of the US. A majority of Americans realize that giving away medicaid, education, social security, and displacing citizen workers is not in most Americans' best interest. This is why immigration does not come up for a vote. It's why it didn't come up for a vote when Democrats held both the House and the Senate in Obama's first two years.

Strange that....

November 6, 2014 - 4:46 PM

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker John Boehner said at a press conference today that “it is just time to deal with” the issue of immigration reform, indicating he hopes to enact an immigration law in the coming year.

But of course he is lying through his teeth and wouldn't dare upset his paymasters.

[Chicog]

Obams <sic> should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

Personally I can't say I'm for it or against it. And it is, after all, only a stop gap with no real permanence.

What I can say is that it's pitiful that so many administrations have passed without any successful attempt to agree immigration reform.

Whether it's right or wrong, at least Obama is *trying* to do something.

Maybe you should ask why Boehner has consistently refused to put an Immigration bill for a vote when even some of his own party would have voted for it, and it probably would have passed.

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

I don't think everybody is in the same loop you are.

Why not let us know why the Republican led House has not taken up the Senate Bill?

[chuckd]

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

I don't think everybody is in the same loop you are.

Why not let us know why the Republican led House has not taken up the Senate Bill?

Congratulations, Chicog.

You just won the honor of making the dumbest post of the month.

[samran]

Ellis Island opened in 1892 as a federal immigration station, a purpose it served for more than 60 years (it closed in 1954). Millions of newly arrived immigrants passed through the station during that time–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.

Modern times demand modern solutions. Our allies; those forward thinking people from down under just signed a deal a couple of weeks ago. The Australian immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has signed a memorandum of understanding in Phnom Penh that cements a plan for refugees who sought Australia’s protection to be ultimately resettled in Cambodia instead.

Obams should pay attention to the immigration solutions of our allies and perhaps try this instead of upsetting the majority of the population of the USA. The only people I know of that are in favor of his executive order are those folks outside of America who don't really know anything about the country or it's problems.

I'm the first to admit when another country has a good idea. And the Aussies have a winner as explained below.

“As part of this commitment, Australia will bear the direct costs of the arrangement, including initial support to refugees, and relevant capacity building for Cambodia to ensure it has the appropriate resources to receive and integrate the refugees successfully.” It said the deal did not breach the refugee convention."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/australia-signs-refugee-deal-cambodia

You are mixing two narratives here.

The Australian situation is about refugees. It certainly works as deterrent (an inhumane one) but I'm of the opinon it has helped slowed people seeking refuge in Australia by boat.

We are also talking about relatively small numbers. Thousands per year. Not Tens or Hundreds of Thousands like in the US. I think the logistics of what you are proposing won't be feasible. Not to mention locking up without trail citizens of your neighbouring country. The best you can do is send them home if caught. People seeking refugee status, you can't send them home if they are found by the UN.

You are talking about coming by boat vs the ability to come overland (unless you are Sarah Palin).

So you are comparing apples and oranges (refugees vs economic migrants). How you process them is necessarily different.

Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago.

But I'll admit, it is a small number compared to the US.

While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque.

The clearest parallel I can find here in Thailand. Relatively prosperous. Poor neighbours. A need for low skilled menial workers in key industries. We are talking hundereds of thousands if not millions of illegal entrants.

What has Thailand done? Implemented a migrant labour scheme. A chance to get legal and work permits. No path to citizenship or PR under this scheme. People come over the border illegally. Once or twice a year labour offices open up to registration, they go back to their home countries temporarily to get passports under the scheme, they re-enter and given visas and 2 year renewable work permits.

They need a thai employer to sponser them. It isn't hard (I sponser our burmese maid). They pay an annual insurance fee for medical care. If they earn enought they pay taxes.

They don't live in shadows. It is a win win. As an example, my maid has said she's going back to Burma in 2 years after being here about 12 years. She's built a house. She's going home.

Seriously, this issue doesn't have to be hard to sort out at all.

1. You are an Aussie commenting about American illegal aliens entering the USA which you know little about.

A. By boat from Cuba and Haiti hundreds of thousands.

B Refugees coming to the USA from South America not Mexico (the latest surge) hundreds of thousands under the same circumstances of as refugees anywhere.

C. You wrote, " While I see someone has mentioned studies where illegal entrants in the US are recipients of some sort of welfare, I'm not convinced that is why they come. They want to work and not get a welfare cheque." The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent). See, thats the problem when you write about stuff and don't have a clue what you are writing about. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

You wrote, "Australia actually runs a migrant labour scheme for workers which allows people to come from the Pacific Islands to work seasonally. It was started as a trial perhaps nearly a decade ago."

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural/industrial jobs. A U.S. employer,a U.S. agent as described in the regulations,or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf.

I could take apart the rest of your post but this is getting long.

Sorry Samran but you don't have a clue about USA immigration policies and should not be writing about them.

The Dems want the immigrants because they vote Democratic and they do so because the majority of them draw some form of government benefits. Sorry but thats the truth.

If Australia sends refugees to Cambodia they won't have a problem like the Americans do with refugees from Latin America, Haiti and Cuba. If you don't eventually you will face the same situation that Florida faces from the boats landing on the shore of that State.

I'm sorry for having the temerity to offer a differing view in the spirit of non-partisan policy debate. So your comments, I think, are our of order.

You, just to remind you, bought up an Australian example. I could have shot you down too, and reminded you that you are an American who has no idea about the Australian policy solution there...but didn't.

I could have made you aware that Cambodia will be lucky to take half a dozen to a dozen refugees orginally bound for Australia....but I didn't.

I could have 'shut you out' of the conversation by saying 'You are not Australian, mind your own business and don't bring up Australian examples for comparison, yee of little knowledge' but I didn't.

Just a little factoid. Labor economics is a bit of a hobby of mine. I am an economist by training. One of the reasons I post here, is because, well dang, it is a visa forum. I've studied labour movmements and migrant labour regs here in Thailand....

I could have gone on to say, yes, they get welfare when they come. Plenty of studies show that. It also rains on people when they arrive in the states. Do they come because of the rain? No. You need to show causality.

I could have also pointed out to you, that the link you provided appears to be speaking about legal migrants, who get welfare after 5 years in the US according to your own link...but I didn't.

I could have also shown you the quote:

"An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009."

I could have shown you the counter factual. Many come to Thailand to work. They get no welfare. And yet they still come. But I didn't. (perhaps I should on that one).

Potential access to welfare is never the primary reason for large scale labour movements, no matter how many right wing website want people to believe it.

If they wanted welfare, they'd continue onto Canada.

I mean your diatribe against me just proves one thing.

Your immigration system is broken, and you don't even know how to fix it.....so please don't start chucking stones....you've had three decades of presidents and congresses of both stripes muck this up.

Time to make it a non partisan issue and figure out a pragmatic solution. It is no time to be dogmatic. And yes, on this one, the US has plenty to learn from lil' ole thailand.

Otherwise, sorry you don't like my participation. Feel free to press the 'ignore' button.

[Publicus]

Seventy-five percent of all Americans across the political spectrum support the provision in the president's executive order which implements comprehensive immigration reform, most specifically as its central features, the following...

Essentially, the bill would allow undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. since before 2012—and who are also in good standing with law—to apply for a newly created status, "Registered Provisional Immigrant," which is good for six years, at which point it can be renewed for another six. After ten years as an RPI, and provided they meet certain requirements, immigrants can apply for Lawful Permanent Residence, or a green card; after three years with a green card, they may apply for citizenship.

This means a 13-year path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants.

Significantly, the following groups of individuals would no longer be subject to quotas:

1) Spouses and children of EB immigrants

2) EB-1A persons of extraordinary ability

3) EB-1B outstanding professors and researchers

4) EB-1C multinational executives and managers

5) Persons holding a doctorate degree in any field

6) Physicians

• Who have completed their 2-year home residency requirement
• Who have received an Interest Government Agency J waiver
• Included are MDs who completed their service requirement before the enactment of this law

7) Persons with an advanced STEM degree from a U.S. university

• Who have an offer of employment in the U.S. in a related field; and
• If they earned their degree within 5 years of the petition filing

8) The 10,000 cap on unskilled workers in the EB-3 category is abolished

http://gawker.com/whats-the-deal-with-the-immigration-reform-bill-a-guid-570781055

What does this link have to do with Obama's executive order?

Your link relates to Senate bill S.744, the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act."

This bill was passed by the Senate in June 2013 but failed to garner any Republican support when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) refused to negotiate the bill with Republicans in the House.

You failed to provide a link in support of your allegation that 75% of Americans support the Executive Order provisions. Please provide one.

You also failed to provide the link where your eight talking points came from. I could not find them in the link you provided on S.744.

The link to the Gallop Gallup poll is in another thread and you addressed it specifically in a post you made to the thread....check it out to see what you posted in reply to my post containing the link.

I know it's a couple of daze days later for you but do try to keep up thx.

Not being enthusiastic about reading any more of your posts than are absolutely necessary, can you simply provide the link?

You had no problem giving us the information from the link so it would be incumbent on you to provide backup to support your allegations.

As it stands now, your quote is unattributed. Up to you.

http://www.intelihealth.com/article/improving-memory-and-treating-memory-loss

[Chicog]

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

I don't think everybody is in the same loop you are.

Why not let us know why the Republican led House has not taken up the Senate Bill?

Congratulations, Chicog.

You just won the honor of making the dumbest post of the month.

Tsk, I would have thought you'd be grateful, since a picture paints a thousand words.

[zydeco]

Some people haven't got a clue about American politics. Of course, the Republican establishment, including the House and Senate leadership, has tried to connive and implement an amnesty scheme. So did GW Bush. But they can't get it done, because every time they try, their constituents rise up in arms. The best thing about Obama's executive order is that it has solidly realigned the parties on this issue. The Republican Beltway leadership won't dare try and endorse an Obama inspired amnesty, now.