Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[simple1]

I'll try again. I think you Aussies think it is OK to ship your illegals trying to barge into Australia off to Cambodia

You've incorrectly raised this matter a few times. Australia has not shipped refugees / asylum seekers against their will to Cambodia. Recognise they have few options, but moving to Cambodia is voluntary and resettlement costs are paid for by Oz govt, so far less than 10 have taken up this option. The policy has been widely condemned by the likes of UNHCR and many Australians.

Edited November 23, 2014 by simple1

[CMNightRider]

For those of you living overseas and not seeing or hearing the lead-up to Obama's granting amnesty for up to 5-million illegals, it was NOT the humanitarian effort many wish to make it out as. If you check the most recent election results, nation-wide, in the USA, you will find that the Democrats lost more seats in the US House and the US Senate and also in the governorships of some states. The cross-over votes came from those that felt disenfranchised by the Regime in office in Washington DC. Latino-voters and Black-voters crossed the line and voted Republican. This move to grant amnesty to illegals will now create another voter-bloc that feels beholding to the Regime and the Democrats due to the amnesty. They will be future Democratic voters. They will replace the cross-over votes we saw in the elections of 2014. The split in the votes of the minority-voters is reflective of their not being satisfied with the promises not kept by the Regime in 2008 and 2012. They took their anger out on the Democrats in 2014.

I didn't see anything in Obama's speech about amnesty. Could you point that bit out?

Obama just granted several million illegals the right to stay in America. It sounds like amnesty to me. What do you call it?

[thailiketoo]

I'll try again. I think you Aussies think it is OK to ship your illegals trying to barge into Australia off to Cambodia

You've incorrectly raised this matter a few times. Australia has not shipped refugees / asylum seekers against their will to Cambodia. Recognise they have few options, but moving to Cambodia is voluntary and resettlement costs are paid for by Oz govt, so far less than 10 have taken up this option. The policy has been widely condemned by the likes of UNHCR and many Australians.

That was exactly my point. I don't know enough about Australian immigration to be commenting on it and Australians don't know enough about American immigration to be commenting on that either.

Edited November 23, 2014 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

1. People who come to the USA to work can be handled by the work programs already in place which I linked earlier.

2. People are coming to the USA for the dole. They want me to support them because they don't feel like working (more than 50% are using some kind of social service).

3. You have an education and can contribute to the US economy and it is not problem getting in legally. The US would have no doctors, 7/11 owners or small hotel managers if it was not for Pakistan.

4. I think Australia is sending people to Cambodia to scare them. Kind of like a penal colony. I don't think they intend to send many because people will realize almost anywhere is better than Cambodia.

The answer to the US problems is a simple one. Secure the border. The only reason Obama wants illegals (to become legal) in is they will vote Democratic. Is this so hard to figure out?

1 you have work programmes on paper. They don't seem to be working. Fix them.

2. Don't give them the dole then. As i said earlier, that won't stop them. They come for work, not the dole.

3. Not disputing that. I'm taking about a part of the system that no one seems to want to find a solution for.

4. No doubt. But they have to be housed somewhere first, in Australia's case, years before claims are processed and appealed. A half a million dollars per year per person I think is the figure. If the maths work for you, go for it.

Strengthening the border, by all means. But fences don't always work.

1. How do you know they are not working? Who do you think picks all the crops in America? Americans? Hardly.

2. Can't stop the dole for many things as it's against the law. If they came for work where did all those Spanish and Haitian prisoners in American jails come from? White males were incarcerated at the rate of 678 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. Hispanic males were incarcerated at the rate of 1,755 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents.

3. If they came for work ......

Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children

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

Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela all have GDP's per capita close to the USA. Why do you think the rush is on to the US instead of those countries? No dole for illegals in South America.

[chuckd]

<Deleted all the scrambled quotes>

Oh Charles,

Now it is thou who is being disingenuous.

No where I was saying 'you are an American you have no right to comment'.

You had made a snarky remark to me about not knowing about two entrances at pizza huts in Saudi and wanting that for Australia and I made a snarky remark back about your pining for the days where Jim crow laws were still in effect.

I was making the broader point about relying on a very simple point of freedom of expression guaranteed in the australian constitution and how I did not agree with racial discrimination. You questioned my position to which I was surprised given those on your side of the fence tend to make yourselves out to be uber consitutionalists.

No where did I make the argument you has no right to participate, which seems to be a favourite tool of some of your less libertarian travellers on the right.

Feel free to correct me if my memory doesn't serve me right.

Permit me to take advantage of the free feel you offered me.

The thread in question is here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/771649-kkk-outfit-worn-in-australia-muslim-veil-protest/page-3

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

1. My first post was the following and was in response to another poster asking your knowledge of the two doors at Pizza Hut:

"If he answers your questions at all, I doubt he will be able to answer this one.

He likely won't have a clue to the two door question."

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

2. You came back with this snappy retort:

"Oh Charles, I know you have trouble keeping up with the young ones, and probably still kicking yourself for leaving all those munitions lying around for ISIS to play with, but the above question is easy to answer.

No I don't want segregated facilities.

But I seriously though you'd be in favour of something like this. You of all people!!! I mean werent the Jim Crow laws for you the hey day of US civilisation?

I'm also a bit confused about you not liking my constitutionalist stance...it is all well and good for you to run around protecting your constitution when some idiot goes around shooting up a dozen people as it does happen every other week in the US, but when I stand up for my own consitution, I become a Islamist? Good god, what a hypocrite you are sometimes."

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

3. I responded to your sarcastic post as follows:

"Sam:

Where, exactly, have I said I do not like your stand on the Australian constitution? Frankly I couldn't care less what your stand is on your constitution.

Care to point out my offending post or are you just going to load up more sarcasm?

I've made over 7,000 posts in nearly 12 years so surely you can find one post of mine that is critical of your position on the Australian constitution.

Unlike you, I don't comment on something that has no impact on me and of which I know nothing. That never seems to stop you."

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

4. You responded to my request to show me where I had said anything about your constitutional stand on anything with the following post:

"Charles is angry.

I had to come up with a response worthy of your snarky and condescending lines about me not answering and not knowing anything. I guess I hit a bit too close to home.....and no, I wasn't being sarcastic...

As for the consitution, I was speaking about it before, and that is how it framed my answers on this topic, which you selectively edited."

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

I never responded to your last comment about your post being "selectively edited". You might want to catch up to date on Forum Netiquette Rule 5.

I selectively edited those portions of your post I was not responding to. Therefore I was not addressing anything you might have inferred or said concerning the Australian Constitution in the first place.

Sometimes the young ones never do catch up.

[chuckd]

Obama's little political stunt made the Central and South American governments quite happy. Guess they will be cleaning out their jails and shipping them north by train.

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

Latin America applauds Obama's immigration plan

Nov. 21, 2014 11:57 PM EST

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto praised President Barack Obama on Friday for his executive orders granting new rights to millions of people living illegally in the United States, calling it "an act of justice."

Mexicans are believed to account for more than half of the roughly 11.2 million migrants living in the U.S. without authorization. Mexico had long pressed for better conditions for them.

Pena Nieto said in a speech that Obama's plan "is an act of justice that recognizes the large contributions that millions of Mexicans have made to the development of our neighbor."

Article here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dba11914e9724447afb7b54589477ca2/latin-america-applauds-obamas-immigration-plan

[up-country_sinclair]

As a follow-up to this...I will say most of my disagreeing of the amnesty by Executive Order comes from the fact that it is a slap in the face of those that came to the USA in a LEGAL manner. I spent a year doing paper-work for my Thai wife via a Thai attorney and a US attorney and it took my life-savings to do so. This was forty years ago at the end of the SE Asia Games. We got no stipend to live on, no free medical-care and no free-housing. I also had to guarantee that my wife would not become a ward-of-the-state via the welfare system. Not so with any of the illegals. They are getting free health-care, free educations and free or subsidized housing. Our single state, Georgia, pays out over $2-Billion each year to cover the costs of illegals and their health-care, housing and educations. This is just one state.

There is so much misinformation in this post I have to wonder if it's been done intentionally.

First of all, amnesty (in the traditional sense) was not granted. Of course some will choose to weaponize the word and stretch its meaning, but this is most certainly not amnesty. Amnesty = Citizenship. This Executive Order does not grant citizenship.

Secondly, those who will directly benefit from this Executive Action will not be eligible for what is known as Obama care. There are no ifs and or buts about this. They are not eligible. Yes, the Federal Govt. provides funding for emergency medical care and maternity care for undocumented immigrants and has done so for years. What's the alternative? Letting them die in the street? Is that an America to be proud of?

Thirdly, they will be required to pay taxes, which is how public education in the US is funded. So, no, they will not be getting free education. They'll be paying for it just like everyone else.

Finally, I don't know about subsidized housing, but with your track record on the previous points, I have my doubts.

Oh, and that $2 billion figure is nonsense. I know that it's a number bandied about in the far reaches of the right wing, but it's just not accurate. If you take a close look at how they arrived at that figure (for example, counting children born in America as illegal immigrants!), you'll be forced to agree with me on this point.

If Republicans would expend the same amount of effort to reach out to the Hispanic community as they are bashing the president, they might actually have a chance at winning the presidency in 2016. Every day that they go on beating this drum, it's more Hispanic votes that they'll never get.

[zydeco]

Amnesty does NOT equal citizenship. Amnesty is forgiveness for a crime and suspension of punishment. Illegals are being given amnesty, because they are not being held liable for their illegal entry into the US. And they are not receiving the appropriate punishment, deportation. Instead, they are given a green card and freedom from prosecution for not paying taxes and/or stealing other people's identity and social security numbers. If I or any other citizen did that, we would be in prison.

[Ulysses G.]

Even Saturday Night Live knows a hypocritical power grab when they see it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snls-obama-shoves-the-schoolhouse-rock-bill-down-the-capital-steps/

[Publicus]

Obama's little political stunt made the Central and South American governments quite happy. Guess they will be cleaning out their jails and shipping them north by train.

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

Latin America applauds Obama's immigration plan

Nov. 21, 2014 11:57 PM EST

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto praised President Barack Obama on Friday for his executive orders granting new rights to millions of people living illegally in the United States, calling it "an act of justice."

Mexicans are believed to account for more than half of the roughly 11.2 million migrants living in the U.S. without authorization. Mexico had long pressed for better conditions for them.

Pena Nieto said in a speech that Obama's plan "is an act of justice that recognizes the large contributions that millions of Mexicans have made to the development of our neighbor."

Article here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dba11914e9724447afb7b54589477ca2/latin-america-applauds-obamas-immigration-plan

Idle and cynical speculation.

North America has three countries, which are Canada, the United States, Mexico. We share electric grids, telephone grids, pipelines and the like. We share NAFTA and NORAD and an alphabet soup of alliances, treaties, groupings. We trade humongously among ourselves because we profit from it and we like it.

As I'd posted, US immigration policy as determined by the Congress and the president since 1965 has favored primarily Latin American peoples and countries and also East Asia and South Asia.

It is a documented phenomenon that when countries such as Mexico achieve a GDP per capita of $8000 to $10,000 or so a number of people who had always wanted to leave finally have the means and the where with all to pack up to take their wares elsewhere.

The typical immigrant is at prime working age, educated, socialized, middle class in the country of origin, ready to start a new life. It's been pointed out Mexicans are much easier to assimilate than many of the immigrants to European countries. Mexicans in fact do what so many right wing Americans are unable to do, which is to assimilate into mainstream American society and culture.

Mexico is not Cuba so the Mexican government will not be sending its undesirables.

[mania]

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto praised President Barack Obama on Friday for his executive orders granting new rights to millions of people living illegally in the United States, calling it "an act of justice."

What a bunch of double talk

[mania]

Even Saturday Night Live knows a hypocritical power grab when they see it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snls-obama-shoves-the-schoolhouse-rock-bill-down-the-capital-steps/

[chuckd]

As a follow-up to this...I will say most of my disagreeing of the amnesty by Executive Order comes from the fact that it is a slap in the face of those that came to the USA in a LEGAL manner. I spent a year doing paper-work for my Thai wife via a Thai attorney and a US attorney and it took my life-savings to do so. This was forty years ago at the end of the SE Asia Games. We got no stipend to live on, no free medical-care and no free-housing. I also had to guarantee that my wife would not become a ward-of-the-state via the welfare system. Not so with any of the illegals. They are getting free health-care, free educations and free or subsidized housing. Our single state, Georgia, pays out over $2-Billion each year to cover the costs of illegals and their health-care, housing and educations. This is just one state.

There is so much misinformation in this post I have to wonder if it's been done intentionally.

First of all, amnesty (in the traditional sense) was not granted. Of course some will choose to weaponize the word and stretch its meaning, but this is most certainly not amnesty. Amnesty = Citizenship. This Executive Order does not grant citizenship.

Secondly, those who will directly benefit from this Executive Action will not be eligible for what is known as Obama care. There are no ifs and or buts about this. They are not eligible. Yes, the Federal Govt. provides funding for emergency medical care and maternity care for undocumented immigrants and has done so for years. What's the alternative? Letting them die in the street? Is that an America to be proud of?

Thirdly, they will be required to pay taxes, which is how public education in the US is funded. So, no, they will not be getting free education. They'll be paying for it just like everyone else.

Finally, I don't know about subsidized housing, but with your track record on the previous points, I have my doubts.

Oh, and that $2 billion figure is nonsense. I know that it's a number bandied about in the far reaches of the right wing, but it's just not accurate. If you take a close look at how they arrived at that figure (for example, counting children born in America as illegal immigrants!), you'll be forced to agree with me on this point.

If Republicans would expend the same amount of effort to reach out to the Hispanic community as they are bashing the president, they might actually have a chance at winning the presidency in 2016. Every day that they go on beating this drum, it's more Hispanic votes that they'll never get.

Of course amnesty has been provided by this action. Amnesty is defined as:

noun, plural amnesties.

1...a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

2...Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.

3...a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

This Executive Order does exactly that. It forgives all past illegal entry to the US prior to a certain date by saying come forward, all is forgiven.

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

You are correct about the $2 Billion figure being incorrect. If anything it is too low. It is estimated the costs to the State of Texas for the year 2013 are put at $12.1 Billion.

What some people tend to forget are the costs that school districts, hospital districts, city governments, country governments and the state are obligated to pay for illegal immigrants

You discount the costs for children of illegal immigrants born in the US as something that should not be included. Why do you think they are called "anchor babies"? Because it "anchors" the entire family to the US and all its benefits. That family often consists of brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents. Suddenly one anchor baby is now responsible for having a family of 25 or more people staying for the benefits.

From the report below, Texas had 195,000 illegal immigrant students and 481,000 US born children of illegal immigrants costing the state $8.5 billion in education costs.

Medicaid for illegal immigrants cost the state $1.9 Billion per year with law enforcement costing an additional $1.1 Billion to enforce immigration laws.

And if the administration continues to ignore the open borders, the situation will only get worse.

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

EXCLUSIVE--REPORT: TX TAXPAYERS PAY BILLIONS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS TO USE STATE SERVICES

by MATTHEW BOYLE 16 Jan 2014

A new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), provided exclusively to Breitbart News, shows that Texans are footing a massive financial bill because of illegal aliens in the state.

“After a brief hiatus that coincided with the worst of the economic recession, Texas’s illegal alien population is on the rise again,” the opening paragraph of the report reads. “There are about 1,810,000 illegal aliens residing in Texas — 70,000 more than resided in the state in 2010 when we estimated the fiscal burden at nearly $8.9 billion annually.”

Specifically, in 2013 alone, FAIR estimates Texans were on the hook for $12.1 billion because of illegal immigration in the state.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/16/Exclusive-Report-Texas-taxpayers-paying-billions-of-dollars-to-fund-illegal-aliens-in-state

[CMNightRider]

Obama's little political stunt made the Central and South American governments quite happy. Guess they will be cleaning out their jails and shipping them north by train.

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

Latin America applauds Obama's immigration plan

Nov. 21, 2014 11:57 PM EST

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto praised President Barack Obama on Friday for his executive orders granting new rights to millions of people living illegally in the United States, calling it "an act of justice."

Mexicans are believed to account for more than half of the roughly 11.2 million migrants living in the U.S. without authorization. Mexico had long pressed for better conditions for them.

Pena Nieto said in a speech that Obama's plan "is an act of justice that recognizes the large contributions that millions of Mexicans have made to the development of our neighbor."

Article here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dba11914e9724447afb7b54589477ca2/latin-america-applauds-obamas-immigration-plan

Idle and cynical speculation.

North America has three countries, which are Canada, the United States, Mexico. We share electric grids, telephone grids, pipelines and the like. We share NAFTA and NORAD and an alphabet soup of alliances, treaties, groupings. We trade humongously among ourselves because we profit from it and we like it.

As I'd posted, US immigration policy as determined by the Congress and the president since 1965 has favored primarily Latin American peoples and countries and also East Asia and South Asia.

It is a documented phenomenon that when countries such as Mexico achieve a GDP per capita of $8000 to $10,000 or so a number of people who had always wanted to leave finally have the means and the where with all to pack up to take their wares elsewhere.

The typical immigrant is at prime working age, educated, socialized, middle class in the country of origin, ready to start a new life. It's been pointed out Mexicans are much easier to assimilate than many of the immigrants to European countries. Mexicans in fact do what so many right wing Americans are unable to do, which is to assimilate into mainstream American society and culture.

Mexico is not Cuba so the Mexican government will not be sending its undesirables.

The Mexican government aren't sending these people to America. This is about illegals crossing into the U.S. illegally. The majority of which are unskilled and uneducated. Obama just granted amnesty to several million illegals, while law-abiding Mexicans stand in line to enter the U.S. legally.

[chuckd]

Obama's little political stunt made the Central and South American governments quite happy. Guess they will be cleaning out their jails and shipping them north by train.

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

Latin America applauds Obama's immigration plan

Nov. 21, 2014 11:57 PM EST

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto praised President Barack Obama on Friday for his executive orders granting new rights to millions of people living illegally in the United States, calling it "an act of justice."

Mexicans are believed to account for more than half of the roughly 11.2 million migrants living in the U.S. without authorization. Mexico had long pressed for better conditions for them.

Pena Nieto said in a speech that Obama's plan "is an act of justice that recognizes the large contributions that millions of Mexicans have made to the development of our neighbor."

Article here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dba11914e9724447afb7b54589477ca2/latin-america-applauds-obamas-immigration-plan

Idle and cynical speculation.

North America has three countries, which are Canada, the United States, Mexico. We share electric grids, telephone grids, pipelines and the like. We share NAFTA and NORAD and an alphabet soup of alliances, treaties, groupings. We trade humongously among ourselves because we profit from it and we like it.

As I'd posted, US immigration policy as determined by the Congress and the president since 1965 has favored primarily Latin American peoples and countries and also East Asia and South Asia.

It is a documented phenomenon that when countries such as Mexico achieve a GDP per capita of $8000 to $10,000 or so a number of people who had always wanted to leave finally have the means and the where with all to pack up to take their wares elsewhere.

The typical immigrant is at prime working age, educated, socialized, middle class in the country of origin, ready to start a new life. It's been pointed out Mexicans are much easier to assimilate than many of the immigrants to European countries. Mexicans in fact do what so many right wing Americans are unable to do, which is to assimilate into mainstream American society and culture.

Mexico is not Cuba so the Mexican government will not be sending its undesirables.

You might want to rethink this part of your sermon.

The typical immigrant is at prime working age, educated, socialized, middle class in the country of origin, ready to start a new life. It's been pointed out Mexicans are much easier to assimilate than many of the immigrants to European countries. Mexicans in fact do what so many right wing Americans are unable to do, which is to assimilate into mainstream American society and culture.

Have you not noticed the vast majority of illegals are coming via freight trains to the border where they swim or wade across the Rio Grande or sneak under the wire in Arizona, California and New Mexico with only a backpack to their names?

Educated, socialized and middle class they ain't.

You might also want to chat about assimilation with those US born students in California high schools who are forbidden from wearing shirts or caps with the US flag on them on Cinco De Mayo. The only ones assimilating there are the native born Americans.

Let me be very clear on this issue. I have absolutely no problem with LEGAL immigration. I believe it to be necessary and right for our nation to accept those that are willing to go to the trouble to enter legally.

I have a problem with those that enter ILLEGALLY.

[up-country_sinclair]

Where is the exasperated smilie? This will have to do:

But, I honestly don't know why I bother.

1. Amnesty in the context of immigration/illegal immigration means granting citizenship. This really isn't open to interpretation. President Reagan granted amnesty when he gave citizenship to illegal immigrants. President Obama's Executive Actions does not do this. As I posted earlier, this is all about politics and Republicans have chosen to weaponize this word just like Democrats have with other words in past political debates. However, that doesn't mean what they're saying is either true or accurate. I know that the word "amnesty" is red meat for the tea party wing of the Republican party---and so do the political operatives and commentators who keep repeating it. Do a google search for the words "Obama amnesty" and look at the websites that come up. It tells you all you really need to know about who is pushing this.

2. The $2 billion figure is taken directly from the post I quoted. He was referring to alleged outlay by the state of Georgia. Nothing at all to do with the Texas.

[Ulysses G.]

Congress granted citizenship to illegal aliens, Reagan did not veto the bill and allowed it to pass. Obama's sneaky little maneuver is not connected to a legitimate bill that made it through the system as required by the constitution.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. Continued bickering is going to result in suspensions. If you have nothing intelligent to say, then don't post. You are not required to respond to every post.

[up-country_sinclair]

Obama's sneaky little maneuver

OK, fine. It's a sneaky little maneuver. But it's not illegal or unconstitutional.

And by the way, another thing it was, is a savvy political maneuver which reestablished the president's relevance. No one is talking about the midterm elections or "lame ducks" now.

[Chicog]

Congress granted citizenship to illegal aliens, Reagan did not veto the bill and allowed it to pass. Obama's sneaky little maneuver is not connected to a legitimate bill that made it through the system as required by the constitution.

Seems to me Reagan DID issue an EO that was not covered under existing law.

Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children.

I don't remember if this caused a kerfuffle at the time or not.

[Ulysses G.]

It was tied to an existing bill. Obama's is not. The president is allowed to alter laws, not make up his own.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Where is the exasperated smilie? This will have to do:

But, I honestly don't know why I bother.

1. Amnesty in the context of immigration/illegal immigration means granting citizenship. This really isn't open to interpretation. President Reagan granted amnesty when he gave citizenship to illegal immigrants. President Obama's Executive Actions does not do this. As I posted earlier, this is all about politics and Republicans have chosen to weaponize this word just like Democrats have with other words in past political debates. However, that doesn't mean what they're saying is either true or accurate. I know that the word "amnesty" is red meat for the tea party wing of the Republican party---and so do the political operatives and commentators who keep repeating it. Do a google search for the words "Obama amnesty" and look at the websites that come up. It tells you all you really need to know about who is pushing this.

2. The $2 billion figure is taken directly from the post I quoted. He was referring to alleged outlay by the state of Georgia. Nothing at all to do with the Texas.

If you find the exasperated smiley, please let me know.

I frankly don't know why you bother either.

Amnesty under any other name is still amnesty and it does not mean the granting of citizenship. All amnesty does is forgive specific past crimes and allows a class of people to move on with their lives without fear of prosecution. In applying amnesty to any acts of legal or illegal immigration, it simply excuses a particular group or class of people for the immigration crimes they might have committed.

Go to this web site and read it. If you can find any special exclusion for amnesty relating to immigration, please post it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/amnesty

I did google "Obama amnesty" to look at those web sites. I presume your objection is most of them are conservative in nature. I can understand your angst because more liberal media sources and blogs aren't shown as supporting Obama's order. Frankly I have no answer to your problem in this area. Contacting Google might be the only suggestion I could offer.

Just for the record, while Obama has declared amnesty in the purest form of the word, the way he has accomplished it is by the use of prosecutorial discretion. He has not used the word amnesty that I can find, other than to deny his executive order is really amnesty. He has simply drawn a line in the sand and said...anybody that arrived in the US before 2009 is eligible for relief from prosecution for their acts of illegal immigration.

Lastly, I was aware where you got your $2 Billion for the state of Georgia. You seemed to think the statement made by Luangtom was, as you put it, nonsense. I merely pointed out to you that Texas was in the range of $12,1 Billion and, if anything, $2 billion for Georgia might be a tad on the low side.

Let me know if you can find any other definition of amnesty as it relates to immigration.

Cheers.

[Chicog]

It was tied to an existing bill. Obama's is not. The president is allowed to alter laws, not make up his own.

Should be fairly easy to challenge in court then, no?

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, yes. It is quite easy. It just takes a lot of time.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Oh, god. Is that going to be the excuse for not taking this court? It will take too long?

For God's sake, just admit its within his authority as president and move on.

[Loptr]

It appears that the GOP will not be putting up a fight over executive amnesty...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/22/Michelle%20Bachmann-GOP-Will-Not-Resist-Obama-Executive-Amnesty

[rijb]

Undocumented Immigrants Aren’t Who You Think They Are

[Loptr]

Oh, god. Is that going to be the excuse for not taking this court? It will take too long?

For God's sake, just admit its within his authority as president and move on.

There are so many outstanding scandals with this administration that the GOP has to pick it's battles while not playing the Dems game... Obama even baited the GOP with government shutdown during his amnesty speech on Thursday night... You know, the speech that was only carried on Spanish speaking channels and not on any English speaking network channels...

News released just yesterday that 30,000 emails from Lois Lerner were recovered after the IRS repeatedly testified to Congress that they were unretrievable...

The next 2 years will be interesting if nothing else...

[up-country_sinclair]

I did google "Obama amnesty" to look at those web sites. I presume your objection is most of them are conservative in nature.

No, not at all. I grew up reading US News and World Report, and right now I'm looking at a copy of the The Economist on my coffee table. The majority of the websites are not conservative. They're extreme right wing: Breitbart, WND, TownHall, etc... These websites are all about uploading clickbait for partisans so their ad revenues increase. "Obama and Amnesty" is probably the most successful piece of clickbait on highly partisan right wing websites these days.

the way he has accomplished it is by the use of prosecutorial discretion. He has not used the word amnesty that I can find, other than to deny his executive order is really amnesty. He has simply drawn a line in the sand and said...anybody that arrived in the US before 2009 is eligible for relief from prosecution for their acts of illegal immigration.

Well, I'm not sure what we're debating, because you're making a lot of sense here.

But my understanding is that they must have a child born in the US, undergo a criminal background check and pay their taxes. I could be wrong about that though, so feel free to correct me.

Let me know if you can find any other definition of amnesty as it relates to immigration.

As I posted earlier, in the context of immigration (in particular "illegal immigration"), amnesty specifically refers to the granting of citizenship. Prosecutorial discretion is not the same as granting amnesty. Sorry, but it just isn't.

Edited November 23, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[Chicog]

It appears that the GOP will not be putting up a fight over executive amnesty...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/22/Michelle%20Bachmann-GOP-Will-Not-Resist-Obama-Executive-Amnesty

We are not going to engage, and what we are going to do is to talk about our positive solutions on jobs, the economy, education, and manufacturing,” Bachmann said.

Looking forward to hearing about those in another thread. I assume it will involve tax breaks at the top end again.