The Immigration/Amnesty (Executive Order) Thread

[cobber]

Here's a look at what people trying to "legally" immigrate have to face.

My family did it. I expect no less of anyone else who wants to come to the US. If you can't hack the process, stay home. One of my daughter's classmate's family came in with no citizen 'anchors'. Somehow they managed too. And being skilled is hardly a panacea. Just try to follow your profession here in the states, with all of the barriers the various professional groups put up.

 

[zippy23]

We need to stop bickering and understand that this entire amnesty fiasco that Obama is doing right now is for NO OTHER REASON that POLITICS. Remember his first two years as president he had democrat majorities in the house and senate, could pass whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. The timing of these executive orders are purely political. The republicans will openly oppose this, the media and democrats will call them racists and bigots and hateful and selfish. The democrats are hoping to score enough political points in the next two years to keep the presidency, with the influx of illegals now being legal and the floodgates effectively open, millions more will now be "out of the shadows"(whatever that means). The voter base for democrats will significantly increase in the next 2 years. Republicans will get beat down in the media daily until the next presidential election. It wont take much, the republican base will get pissed because nothing will be done about obama doing these things and will likely stay home like they did for Romney. This is so easy to see now if you step back and realize one thing.....THIS IS PURELY POLITICAL. nothing more. Republicans dont play the political game, they play the sit back and let democrats do bad stuff and go along so they dont get trashed by the media. What a sham.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Good lord.

Rep Hank Johnson compares Obama's immigration EO to the "Emancipation Proclamation"

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/532984298618748928

Meh...just another example of how little most know of a bull**** proclamation that freed not a single slave.

Just think....Johnson is what many folks deem competent leadership.

I'll just leave this here:

[video=youtube;bs23CjIWMgA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA[/video]

Here's a look at what people trying to "legally" immigrate have to face.

I don't care what they have to go through. That's the process in place. If it's worthwhile to them, they'll go through the process.

Here's an analogy:
I want to be a doctor, but I don't want to have to finish high school, take tests, make applications, try to get accepted to university, earn a Bachelors, take more tests, apply and hope to be accepted to med school, get accepted, take four more years of intensive classes to get my MD, then do a 4-6yr residency to actually learn how to practice, I just want to go take my boards and get my license and be done with it, open an office and take rich patients and earn millions of dollars like that guy on TV did.

Leaving out the fact that you're probably not a rich patient who could support the above speaker in the manner to which he'd like to become accustomed, would you trust this "doctor"? Should he be able to bypass all the steps in the middle because they'll take a minimum of 14 years after high school?

Too specific and scientific? OK. Use the same rationale in re: the practice of law. No lives are directly in the palm of someone's hand; in point of fact, many years ago, in some states, someone could sit for the Bar exam to become a lawyer by "reading the law", rather than attending law school. A man in my grandfathers, and later my father's office did this. (I don't think Indiana ever allowed it, but I don't know that to be fact. I do know that IN does not allow it now, nor have I heard of any state that does.)

So... would you trust this lawyer?

Those things that are worthwhile sometimes take more than just someone waving a magic wand (or a pen) and saying "Okee dokee."

The process wasn't designed to be easy. It was designed to be possible, if someone was willing to work for it.

I didn't like waiting months to be approved to buy my suppressor, either, but I didn't expect someone to come along and change the law just for me. I did the process just like everyone else does. That doesn't mean I don't expect politicians to work toward repealing NFA 34, even though it won't happen in my lifetime.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Trigger Time]

You Nancys are right. No border fence necessary.

automated machine gun targets people from 3 miles - YouTube
Rheinmetall Air Defence : NBS MANTIS - YouTube

im im all for it and I don't care what people think of me for saying it. Don't want killed? Don't illegally invade mount country.
kinda like, don't want shot and killed? Don't break into my house or try to kill me.

 

[printcraft]

Here's a look at what people trying to "legally" immigrate have to face.

[video=youtube;hdCbuF8_1p8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdCbuF8_1p8[/video]

 

[Trigger Time]

He will probably pardon the inmates at gitmo before/IF he Leaves office

 

[printcraft]

Also, I'm ashamed of America for having to make people go through a process to immigrate to this country.

We are the only country in the entire world that does that.

Everyone else in the world can freely go to any other country and just move right in without any type of immigration process.

We suck and are clearly on the wrong side of history.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Might fly the ol' flag upside-down tomorrow.

 

[T.Lex]

Answer my questions and we'll see. You ask me if I would accept compromises but can't describe what compromise you mean.

Right now it seems that you are conflating two separate statements; the first one you asked was whether I would accept a compromise, my answer was that it would depend on the compromise. The second one was whether my opinion of amnesty would change if I knew someone here illegally.

Before I spend the time with a litany of potential compromises, I'm curious if you can think of any area of your proposal that you might compromise on. I understand this is the internet, but you really don't strike me as very open to compromise at all.

But, in the spirit of the venture, you also asked about unintended consequences. Channeling just a bit of this (somewhat) off topic list:
15 Works of Dystopian Fiction Everyone Should Read ? Flavorwire

So, to recap, you said:

Make it economically unviable for illegal aliens to remain in the country. Absolutely no public assistance. No driving licences. No healthcare. No education. Change the requirements for citizenship. Expand e-verify, with fines of $100K for each employee who is an illegal alien, and 6 months of Federal jail time for the employer for each infraction after the first.

Well, first, we'll need more and better ways to differentiate citizens/legal permanent residents (let's call them Whitehats) from illegals (we'll call them Blackhats). We can't really use SSNs, because that can lead to identity theft. No, we'll need everyone who can prove Whitehat status to apply for and obtain new papers. We'll mandate that people keep these papers with them at all times and present them to any law enforcement officer who has reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (more on that later).

As you point out, economics are a significant reason for Blackhats to come to the US. So, we'll require Whitehats to show their papers before every financial transaction. Not just at banks, but everywhere - grocery stores, restaurants, everywhere, every exchange of money. Easily constitutional under the commerce clause. That may even prove too cumbersome, since cash transactions between individuals are nearly impossible to regulate. So, the next step will be to eliminate cash. To transact any business in the US, you need a bank account with a credit or debit card. Nowadays, smart phones can handle the transaction processing, so there really won't be much trouble at all.

An added bonus is that this will almost eliminate tax fraud. The gov't would be able to track every dollar spent, by whom, and from which account. That will make sure only Whitehats can spend money.

But, human ingenuity is adept. Some unscrupulous Whitehats (we'll call them Grayhats) might act like middlemen for Blackhats, and take a percentage to barter goods or services with Blackhats. So, we'll make it a crime to do business with Blackhats. That way, if LEOs suspect someone is helping Blackhats, they can investigate the transactions.

Speaking of LEOs, this is all on the enforcement side. What about deterrence?

Well, I think we have much to learn from other countries on this. I was always mystified that we leave our borders guarded by "civilian" police agencies like Customs and Border Patrol. Many other countries have their military handle that, which seems far more appropriate. Particularly since we are effectively being invaded, right?

So, starting with the next fiscal year, we will use Army divisions - a mix of active duty, NG, and reserves - to guard our borders. If someone is approaching the border from the other side, not at a checkpoint, the ROE will be to shoot on sight. If we find someone inside the wire, without Whitehat papers, they will be immediately taken to a checkpoint and rudely kicked in the rear to the other side.

Oh yeah, the redeployment will cost some money. Using rough numbers, let's say a billion dollars a year. As we've all heard, immigration affects every state, so we'll expect every state to pitch in. If my math is correct, that means $20M per year from each state. That seems fair. They can either pay that in one lump sum, or the feds can take it out of medical reimbursements, highway subsidies, or any number of other federal teets. Doesn't matter. We're all in this together.

That still comes back to how we'll pay for this. Modest tax increases should cover it - both federal and state.

That gets awkward, though, since inflation will be so high. You see, entire business sectors' labor costs will increase overnight. Landscaping, home building, food services, farming - all those industries, at a local level, tend to use a higher incidence of "illegal" laborers. They'll either go out of business or they'll have to increase prices an extraordinary amount. That doesn't even get to a somewhat smaller segment of the "illegal" population that are professionals - medical workers, programmers, etc. - who got good-paying jobs under work visas, but they either expired or the person moved to a different employer and never bothered updating their status.

That's just for the businesses that can afford the insurance to guard against the high fines of mistakenly hiring a Blackhat.

Great point about healthcare and education. For every Whitehat kid that's enrolled, their parents/guardians should have to prove Whitehat status, too.

Would probably be a good idea to have neighborhood watch type groups keep an eye on neighborhoods, too. Have a Volunteer Cadre that helps with this (we'll call them Brownhats). These good citizens wouldn't have any LEO powers, but they'd be able to monitor their own blocks for any "new" people. We could have a federal database of Whitehats that LEOs and Brownshirts could search to confirm status.

To address the "anchor baby" problem, we could bring back the time-honored tradition of orphanages. Under the constitution (and all good Whitehats are strict constructionists), anyone born here is a Whitehat. So, we can't kick the kids out. But, we can kick out the Blackhat relatives. There'll be a cost to these state orphanages, but nothing a little tax increase can't cure. If the Blackhats want to take their vermin children back to whatever cesspool they came from, we're just a constitutional amendment away from stripping Whitehat children of Blackhats of citizenship. No reason to reward them due to an accident of birth.

Plus, as the purging goes on for a few years, there should be fewer and fewer Blackhats to have kids. So, that population will decrease to the point where it'll be a curious footnote in history. Kinda like the 17th amendment.

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything. Indeed, trying to figure out unintended consequences can never really be thorough enough. This stuff just seems like the natural extension of your proposition.

Apologies to the TL;DR crowd. I kinda got on a roll.

 

[OakRiver]

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything. Indeed, trying to figure out unintended consequences can never really be thorough enough. This stuff just seems like the natural extension of your proposition.

I'm sorry that I do not presently have time to go through your post and offer a rebuttal on every single line, but what I will say is that is a beautiful example of strawman wherein the United States is turned into essentially a police state

 

[Expat]

Also, I'm ashamed of America for having to make people go through a process to immigrate to this country.

We are the only country in the entire world that does that.

Everyone else in the world can freely go to any other country and just move right in without any type of immigration process.

We suck and are clearly on the wrong side of history.

All too true. Every other country in the world is so hip and kewl. I wish we loved liberty like they do.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

?Constitutional concerns.? Not every Dem is happy with Pres. Obama?s executive immigration order | Twitchy

 

[T.Lex]

I'm sorry that I do not presently have time to go through your post and offer a rebuttal on every single line, but what I will say is that is a beautiful example of strawman wherein the United States is turned into essentially a police state

First, I'm glad you think it was well written, at least.

Second, I think of it not so much a strawman but a parade of horribles.

Finally, yes, the only way to achieve your stated goal of eliminating illegal immigration is for the US to continue on the path toward a greater police state. (Perhaps in another thread we could argue whether we've already achieved "police state" status, at least in certain areas.) It is really free market economics at work. We have a great system. Our system, based on equal opportunity, will always attract people to come here illegally.

Keep in mind you stated your goal was to make it economically "unviable" for illegals. Yet, as long as you have cash, you'll have a black/gray market for goods and services. As long as you have that black/gray market, you'll have a market for illegals to sell their products and labor without legal repercussions.

If you are truly committed to your goals, then that's one of the root causes. Going after employers is really a bad option. Plus, to be effective, you'd have to turn everyone into an employee and get rid of "subcontractors," at least at a basic level. One company might subcontract with another company, but all of the workers in the second company would have to be employees.

Oh, and no need to rebut every line (although you can if you want). If you don't like the idea of a police state to enforce immigration laws, then you must be willing to accept some population of illegals.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

?I want a refund of all my legal fees? plus years of interest: Legal immigrants ask for money back | Twitchy

 

[88GT]

Has this one been posted in here yet:
Caught on Camera: Obama Called Exec Immigration Action Illegal 25 Times | Fox News Insider

I've just been skimming and can't recall.

 

[T.Lex]

Has this one been posted in here yet:
Caught on Camera: Obama Called Exec Immigration Action Illegal 25 Times | Fox News Insider

I've just been skimming and can't recall.

As with so many things, he was wrong on that, too.

 

[88GT]

As with so many things, he was wrong on that, too.

He may have the legal latitude to use EOs for certain things. But he doesn't have the legal latitude to re-write law and intent with them.

 

[mrjarrell]

What did the sainted Ronnie and Archangel Bush think about illegal immigration?
No walls or fences needed for these two.
[video=youtube_share;Ixi9_cciy8w]http://youtu.be/Ixi9_cciy8w[/video]

The full debate is at the library.

 

[printcraft]

What did the sainted Ronnie and Archangel Bush think about illegal immigration?
No walls or fences needed for these two.
The full debate is at the library.

Keep on keeping on carrying that water.

 

[T.Lex]

He may have the legal latitude to use EOs for certain things. But he doesn't have the legal latitude to re-write law and intent with them.

He is re-writing neither law nor intent. He can't.

He can decide under what circumstances he prosecutes certain alleged violations.

The best analogy I can come up with is prosecutorial discretion in going after certain crimes and when to do plea deals. Prosecutors basically have unfettered discretion in that kind of thing (that is generally a good thing, too). To my knowledge, there is no law that MANDATES deportation of otherwise law-abiding illegals. There are a multitude of statutory exceptions and defenses, and I think at least 1 common-law hardship exception.

My understanding is that he's choosing not to fight about those exceptions in cases that fit a certain profile.

Analogy - a prosecutor that says he won't prosecute a murder case against someone who uses a self-defense defense if the dead guy was a proven gang member. (Again, not saying it would be a good idea to have that specific policy, just saying that it is an option.)