quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I have to say. I don't have the answer, when it comes to immigration. We always seem to go through a cycle:

1) A flood of immigrants come here illegally. Most of them, are hard-working. A small percentage of them make it to the middle class. Many have children.

False. The USA has been built by immigration and is a leading nation because of it. The bulk of immigrants make it to the middle class by their second generation.

2) Liberals cry for amnesty.

There is no such thing as "amnesty," this is simply a right wing term with negative connotations.

3) The President (doesn't matter which party) grants amnesty, citing why it is best for the country, and why it will never need to happen again. Clearly pandering. Both parties do it all the time.

Wrong, the President never grants amnesty, ever. Congress has Plenary Authority over immigration. End of Story. The Executive merely has enforcement powers and the discretion that goes with them.

This latest time, it was Obama. I don't want to debate whether or not it was legal. (Probably was as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but maybe not). And maybe, in the short term, (legal or not), it's good policy. But long-term? Rinse and repeat.
(And BTW: I feel for the children who have been brought here through no fault of their own. But SHAME on the people that brought them here illegally.)
It is a slap in the face to every LEGAL immigrant that has followed the rules.

Obama has deported more immigrants than any President in history. He's offered deferred action to early childhood arrivals in the USA, i.e. not deporting at 15 year old child who was brought into the USA as an infant.

Here is what bothers me:

1) The use of the term "Undocumented Immigrants". People come here illegally. Plain and simple.

Wrong Again. The bulk of Immigrants come to the USA legally and overstay their visas and run out of status. Another group crosses the border.

They are illegal aliens (meaning non-citizens). Not "undocumented immigrants."

Undocumented Immigrants means they have no papers or status documents to obtain SS numbers, dirvers licesnces, and they do not possess work permits. The term "illegal aliens" makes about as much sense as the term "illegal drivers" to describe drivers who speed, run red lights, or drive without a license. They are not criminals, they just aren't in compliance with regulatory laws.

Are car thieves now "unregistered auto drivers"?

Bad comparison Residents without status are not criminals and have not violated any criminal laws.

Murderers, undocumented executioners?

You are looking like a bigoted asshole here with this comparison.

There is a reason WHY they are undocumented. They are illegal!

No, they are not in compliance with current laws, which can always be changed. When laws don't work and are not achieving their purpose (in this case, effectively regulating immigration) you change the laws. If you have too many "speeders" on a road, you can get punitive or you can raise the speed limit.

2) In the summer time, in my town, if I walk by the Federal Building, invariably, I will walk by crowds of protesters, yelling for the rights of "undocumented immigrants". If I had immigrated into a country illegally (which I would never do), the LAST thing I would do is stand in front of a government building and demand my rights.

You an only see things through the narrowest of lenses. IF Central America, South America, and Africa were first world countries not torn up by wars, poverty, gang violence, corruption, et. al. their residents would not seek to migrate to better opportunities. Comparing yourself to them is stupid and solipsistic. Most American realize that we are on a large planet and that we must adjust to migrations and that we cannot control these movements with an iron fist. It is just not possible. Many residents here seeking status are married to US citizens, have US citizen children, own businesses, or have lived here for ten or more years. Why not integrate them into US society and the economy the increase our GDP, put a jolt into the housing market, and raise the general US standard of living?

3) Everyone knows that we need some new ideas (I never had a good idea on immigration). All the Republicans do is demagogue. They say, they won't talk about it until we seal the border. Here is the reality: We will NEVER seal the border. It just isn't possible.

I would like to live in a different world where others weren't compelled to leave their homes to take a chance on a better life for their families by coming to the USA -- I would like more world stability. The long term answer is a more stable world, but right now things are highly unstable. There are millions of displaced persons and stateless individuals with failed/troubled states in Syria, IRAQ, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, Yemen, gang violence in Central America.

As the US addresses this question, so must the other states in Europe. Right now my applicants for asylum must wait two (2) years for a hearing and five years to appear before an immigration judge.

The answer is provide new pathways to a green card based upon: moral character, criminal background checks, time spent in the USA, family connections to legal residents; then institute a system of fines for those in violation of immigration regulations. Concentrate deportations on criminals. Eliminate / modify the three (3) and ten (10) year bars for those who have overstayed their visas. (This means they never want to leave.)


So now what???

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Wrong, the President never grants amnesty, ever. Congress has Plenary Authority over immigration. End of Story. The Executive merely has enforcement powers and the discretion that goes with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


From the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

There is some confusion - not necessarily in this case but generally - regarding the proper term for non-citizens who are in the United States unlawfully. The leading legal lexicographer offers the following compelling explanation:

The usual and preferable term in [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near-gobbledygook. The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, "not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally." But the word strongly suggests "unaccounted for" to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning.

More than one writer has argued in favor of undocumented alien . . . [to] avoid[ ] the implication that one’s unauthorized presence in the United States is a crime. . . . But that statement is only equivocally correct: although illegal aliens’ presence in the country is no crime, their entry into the country is. . . . Moreover, it is wrong to equate illegality with criminality, since many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence "illegal").

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I have to say. I don't have the answer, when it comes to immigration. We always seem to go through a cycle:
1) A flood of immigrants come here illegally. Most of them, are hard-working. A small percentage of them make it to the middle class. Many have children.
False. The USA has been built by immigration and is a leading nation because of it. The bulk of immigrants make it to the middle class by their second generation.

quote:

2) Liberals cry for amnesty.
There is no such thing as "amnesty," this is simply a right wing term with negative connotations.

quote:

3) The President (doesn't matter which party) grants amnesty, citing why it is best for the country, and why it will never need to happen again. Clearly pandering. Both parties do it all the time.
Wrong, the President never grants amnesty, ever. Congress has Plenary Authority over immigration. End of Story. The Executive merely has enforcement powers and the discretion that goes with them.

quote:

This latest time, it was Obama. I don't want to debate whether or not it was legal. (Probably was as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but maybe not). And maybe, in the short term, (legal or not), it's good policy. But long-term? Rinse and repeat.
(And BTW: I feel for the children who have been brought here through no fault of their own. But SHAME on the people that brought them here illegally.)
It is a slap in the face to every LEGAL immigrant that has followed the rules.
Obama has deported more immigrants than any President in history. He's offered deferred action to early childhood arrivals in the USA, i.e. not deporting at 15 year old child who was brought into the USA as an infant.

quote:

Analysts say much of the change over the last decade has been due to the implementation of controversial federal-led measures such as Secure Communities initiative and the Criminal Alien Program, which are designed to root out undocumented immigrants accused or convicted of various criminal acts. Both measures predate Obama's presidency.

(Italics mine)

quote:

White House domestic policy chief Cecilia Muñoz on Thursday blamed Congress for the record number of deportations carried out by the Obama administration.

Jose Antonio Vargas, an undocumented immigrant, asked Muñoz during a Google+ Hangout how President Obama feels about deporting 1.5 million illegal immigrants since taking office.

"The government’s job is to do what Congress tells it to do," Muñoz replied. "Congress, under the immigration laws that we've got now, Congress requires us to remove people who are removable and gives DHS, frankly, a whole lot of resources to do that job. DHS’s job is to make sure they make the best possible decisions on how they use those resources."

She said the Department of Homeland Security has tried to prioritize whom it goes after, for example those convicted of crimes, but at the end of the day, Congress needs to pass immigration reform.

"We all understand we are enforcing and implementing a system which is broken, and our primary job here is to fix it and that requires the Congress of the United States," Muñoz said. "That’s something we've been trying to get Congress to do for four years, and our moment has come... We have to drive it home and make sure we get to an outcome."

quote:

Today in a town hall-style meeting in Washington DC designed to showcase his health reform law for the Latino community, President Barack Obama told those who attended that he was powerless to stop mass expulsions of illegal immigrants, which has prompted one Latino advocacy group to brand him “deporter in chief.” The president said Congress is forcing him to enforce existing immigration laws while balking at passing a comprehensive bill that would offer illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. “I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do,” Mr. Obama said. “The reason why these deportations are taking place is that Congress said ‘you have to enforce these laws’. I cannot ignore those laws any more than I can ignore any of the other laws that are on the books.”

quote:

Here is what bothers me:
1) The use of the term "Undocumented Immigrants". People come here illegally. Plain and simple.
Wrong Again. The bulk of Immigrants come to the USA legally and overstay their visas and run out of status. Another group crosses the border.

quote:

They are illegal aliens (meaning non-citizens). Not "undocumented immigrants."
Undocumented Immigrants means they have no papers or status documents to obtain SS numbers, dirvers licesnces, and they do not possess work permits. The term "illegal aliens" makes about as much sense as the term "illegal drivers" to describe drivers who speed, run red lights, or drive without a license. They are not criminals, they just aren't in compliance with regulatory laws.

quote:

Are car thieves now "unregistered auto drivers"?
Bad comparison Residents without status are not criminals and have not violated any criminal laws.

quote:

Murderers, undocumented executioners?
You are looking like a bigoted asshole here with this comparison.

quote:

There is a reason WHY they are undocumented. They are illegal!
No, they are not in compliance with current laws, which can always be changed. When laws don't work and are not achieving their purpose (in this case, effectively regulating immigration) you change the laws. If you have too many "speeders" on a road, you can get punitive or you can raise the speed limit.

quote:

2) In the summer time, in my town, if I walk by the Federal Building, invariably, I will walk by crowds of protesters, yelling for the rights of "undocumented immigrants". If I had immigrated into a country illegally (which I would never do), the LAST thing I would do is stand in front of a government building and demand my rights.
You an only see things through the narrowest of lenses. IF Central America, South America, and Africa were first world countries not torn up by wars, poverty, gang violence, corruption, et. al. their residents would not seek to migrate to better opportunities. Comparing yourself to them is stupid and solipsistic. Most American realize that we are on a large planet and that we must adjust to migrations and that we cannot control these movements with an iron fist. It is just not possible. Many residents here seeking status are married to US citizens, have US citizen children, own businesses, or have lived here for ten or more years. Why not integrate them into US society and the economy the increase our GDP, put a jolt into the housing market, and raise the general US standard of living?

quote:

3) Everyone knows that we need some new ideas (I never had a good idea on immigration). All the Republicans do is demagogue. They say, they won't talk about it until we seal the border. Here is the reality: We will NEVER seal the border. It just isn't possible.
I would like to live in a different world where others weren't compelled to leave their homes to take a chance on a better life for their families by coming to the USA -- I would like more world stability. The long term answer is a more stable world, but right now things are highly unstable. There are millions of displaced persons and stateless individuals with failed/troubled states in Syria, IRAQ, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, Yemen, gang violence in Central America.

quote:

As the US addresses this question, so must the other states in Europe. Right now my applicants for asylum must wait two (2) years for a hearing and five years to appear before an immigration judge.

quote:

The answer is provide new pathways to a green card based upon: moral character, criminal background checks, time spent in the USA, family connections to legal residents; then institute a system of fines for those in violation of immigration regulations. Concentrate deportations on criminals. Eliminate / modify the three (3) and ten (10) year bars for those who have overstayed their visas. (This means they never want to leave.)
So now what???

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
ann coulter (mere mention of whom is likely to send the comrades here into painful paroxysms) just wrote a book called "adios America" that is all about this topic. I suspect it will be an informative and thought provoking read.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I have to say. I don't have the answer, when it comes to immigration. We always seem to go through a cycle:

1) A flood of immigrants come here illegally. Most of them, are hard-working. A small percentage of them make it to the middle class. Many have children.

2) Liberals cry for amnesty.

3) The President (doesn't matter which party) grants amnesty, citing why it is best for the country, and why it will never need to happen again. Clearly pandering. Both parties do it all the time.

This latest time, it was Obama. I don't want to debate whether or not it was legal. (Probably was as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but maybe not). And maybe, in the short term, (legal or not), it's good policy. But long-term? Rinse and repeat.
(And BTW: I feel for the children who have been brought here through no fault of their own. But SHAME on the people that brought them here illegally.)
It is a slap in the face to every LEGAL immigrant that has followed the rules.

Here is what bothers me:

1) The use of the term "Undocumented Immigrants". People come here illegally. Plain and simple. They are illegal aliens (meaning non-citizens). Not "undocumented immigrants." Are car thieves now "unregistered auto drivers"? Murderers, undocumented executioners? There is a reason WHY they are undocumented. They are illegal!

2) In the summer time, in my town, if I walk by the Federal Building, invariably, I will walk by crowds of protesters, yelling for the rights of "undocumented immigrants". If I had immigrated into a country illegally (which I would never do), the LAST thing I would do is stand in front of a government building and demand my rights.

3) Everyone knows that we need some new ideas (I never had a good idea on immigration). All the Republicans do is demagogue. They say, they won't talk about it until we seal the border. Here is the reality: We will NEVER seal the border. It just isn't possible.


So now what???

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I support immigration. In fact we have laws that tell us how to do it.

I do not support illegals coming to the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Central and Southern American illegal immigrants aren't here because they are "displaced or stateless" individuals due to troubles in their home countries. They are choosing to come here. They are not seeking asylum. They are not seeking protection from their home governments.

quote:


I would agree that 2 years is a ridiculous amount of time to wait for an asylum hearing, and we really do need to do something about the 5 year period to get before an immigration judge.