E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSEL PASO, Texas – President Obama today will try to “create a sense of urgency” here around the issue of immigration and once again call on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, senior White House aides said.
But there will be few specifics in the president’s speech beyond a basic outline he laid out nearly a year ago in a July 2010 speech on the subject, and the president will not issue a deadline or a timeline, those advisers said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.
Early materials provided by the White House yesterday, previewing the president’s speech, noted he will “work to build bipartisan consensus in Congress.” That means it’s unlikely something passes or even get voted on before the 2012 election – though Democrats suggested yesterday it is possible there could be some kind of vote that would once again put Republicans on record.
A vote like that would be largely political, considering Democrats do not likely have the 60 votes necessary to advance a bill in the Senate. And it would face an even steeper hill in the House, which is controlled by Republicans. (The president is a supporter of the DREAM Act, which would give students brought to the United States illegally a path to citizenship. But it failed 55-41 in the Senate in December 2010 before Republicans’ congressional gains as a result of the 2010 midterm elections.)
It’s hard not to see politics in the president’s trip as well. In addition to the obvious importance of the demographic the president is speaking to – Hispanics are the largest-growing group (and voting bloc) in the country – Obama will also attend two fundraisers for his reelection campaign in Austin, Texas.
Raising the issue, Democrats hope, will get Republicans talking about immigration. It’s difficult for Republicans running for president to stake out a moderate position on the issue, because of the early primaries that attract hard-line conservative activists, staunchly opposed to anything that would give those in the country illegally a pathway to citizenship.
It practically derailed Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential bid in 2008. McCain -- who was an advocate of the last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, pushed by the Bush White House -- spent much of the 2008 cycle apologizing for his previous position on the issue.
While here, Obama will also tour a cargo facility at the Bridge of Americas Port of Entry, which the White House says is the “largest of four crossings that comprise the El Paso Port of Entry,” where about 10 percent of the nation’s border inspections take place.
In his July 2010 remarks at American University in Washington, 80 percent of which tried to build a moral argument for reform, the president laid out the following specifics:
- The U.S. can’t grant blanket amnesty. But it also can’t just round up 11 million people and deport them.
- He stressed there needed to be more accountability from government, businesses, and individuals.
- Border security needed to be improved – although he touted then and will today that it is the most secure border there has ever been. But that the border is too vast to solve the problem simply with fences and border patrols alone.
- He said there needed to be better employee-verification systems.
- Individuals must admit they broke the law, register and pay taxes, pay a fine, learn English and get in line. At the same time, the government needed to streamline the immigration process, which has seen a tremendous backlog.
- He said farms needed a legal way to hire workers and create a pathway for those workers to become legal.
- And any immigration reform needed to include the DREAM Act.
The president has held at least three events in the past two months with a specific focus on immigration, including a May 3rd meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on “Fixing the Broken Immigration System,” an April 19th meeting with “Stakeholders” on the same topic, and a March 28th Hispanic education town hall, at which he pushed the DREAM Act. Immigration was also a focus on his commencement speech at Miami Dade College April 29. Miami Dade is a 90 percent minority school with a sizable Latino population.
In the next few weeks, the senior White House advisers said there will be a “campaign of sorts” to move “elevate the conversation” outside the Beltway with influential Latinos, business leaders, and law enforcement.
Later this week, the president will attend the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast; Tomorrow, there will be a conference call recapping the speech; Thursday is a roundtable in Omaha, NE, with the president’s chief technology officer and a “community conversation” in Silicon Valley, CA, hosted by Steve Case, AOL’s former CEO; May 19, there’s another conference call – this one with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis with Asian American and Pacific Island leaders; May 31, Solis hosts a roundtable in Albuquerque, NM.
Most importantly really are the demographics and what they potentially mean to the president’s reelection bid. Hispanics now make up 16% of the U.S. population, according to the latest U.S. Census data released this year. But they made up just 9% of the voting population in the 2008 presidential election. Obama won two-thirds (67%) of the Hispanics that voted, but that discrepancy, that undervote, is one Obama’s campaign hopes to exploit.
It was able to successfully register young voters and African Americans, helping candidate Obama to a resounding victory. There is room to do the same with Latinos.
So far, according to the latest NBC News poll, Hispanics overwhelmingly approve of the job the president is doing – 61% approved, 29% said they disapproved. In a hypothetical matchup with a generic Republican, Hispanics said they would probably vote for Obama by a 50%-28% margin.
The president’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has helped to engender the president to the group. But the community has also showed some frustration with the lack of progress on comprehensive immigration reform, and the increased number of deportations under this administration.
Leave a Comment:
What difference does it make whether or not it contains a 'timelime'?
It will be met head on with a HUGE hell NO from the right!
This is ONE issue where bi-partisianship could be achieved, if the right would stop trying to BLOCK anything and everything this President does...
The system is broken and all the partisian bickering isn't going to change a thing!
If the Obama re-election plans include registration of eligible Hispanic voters, this explains the Republicans' current emphasis on so-called voting reform, making registration and voting much more difficult. What else can they do since they can't win on the merits of the issues?
Aww Feisty that is so cute: "from the right," eh?
I guess we will all ignore all those democrats up for re-election this year that will under no circumstances vote for any type of "reform."
But I know old gal, you need to cling to your narrative. But good news - the system is not broken, just enforcement. The laws on the books are just fine, and with proper enforcement would serve very well.
Sorry but it is not a partisan issue. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, a big proponent of government regulation of business and the environment. I am, however, a very vocal opponent of CIR. If this was a partisan issue, the Democrats could have passed the DREAM Act when they had a super majority but they had no where enough votes and it was removed from the floor.
Until there is some indication that enforcement of whatever new immigration laws get written, I will continue to lobby against CIR. In every state that has tried to pass E-Verify laws, or Secure Community compliance, there has been ardent opposition from the same groups that are calling for CIR. It doesn't look likely to change any time soon, and border enforcement is never going to happen. As a long time resident of 3 different border state, I read different news sources than AP and Reuters. I know how much the administration is lying about what it is doing to "secure the borders" and "get tough on lawbreakers" Since NAFTA both our northern and southern border focus has been on the transportation of goods, not security. That remains unchanged in this administration. In fact they are considering moving even more field agents to border crossing to cut the wait times even as I type this.
The system is not going to be less broken if they pass CIR. It wasn't in 1986 and it wasn't in 1996.
RVZ555
Obama and the Dems want immigration reform (mass amnesty) because they believe it will win them Hispanic votes. Period.
FYI: The DREAM Act Is Not Immigration Amnesty
http://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/dream-act-not-immigration-amnesty.html
Isn't it more than a little condescending and disrespectful to the Latino community to assume that the majority of them SUPPORT BREAKING THE LAW?
What about the 2 un-convicted criminals Dick Cheney and George W Bush. I 's say that embarrassing for the whole nation since Bush can't leave here for fear of being locked up for admitting to war crime
Once again put Republicans on record for slime merchants.
Ok Bev. - please tell us, in your own words [that means no cutting and pasting] how the dream act is not amnesty.
The students that would benefit are not citizens, correct.
I guess bombing Libya without getting approval from Congress is OK, but that's not the point. Bev, since you have Obama's ear, have him ask Holder to look into it and let us know what he says. Thanks Bev.
Bev:
I see you are still on here talking out of your @ss. The Dream Act IS a form of amnesty. It is crafted in a very political way as to just win a political battle for the Democrats.
This issue is very political and NEITHER party wants any part of it. All of this "on the record" BS is just that BS. Nothing will ever be accomplished on this issue. If it was so important to the Democrats; they would have passed it when they were in control but they were scared politically to be on this so-called "record".
You need to get a grip on that war -crime nonsense. I would never say about Obama some of the shyt you liberals spew about Bush. When another country is threatening a former POTUS; the whole damn U.S.should be condemning that country. We know that won't happen because you Liberals just can't bring yourselves up to that dignified level and support all POTUS past and present regardless of party.
Let's remember, President George W. Bush tried to get immigration reform on the books and he was defeated. President Obama is going to run into the same kind of opposition.
It would certainly be nice if we could deal with some serious facts. Americans absolutely refuse to work in minimum-wage, intensive-labor jobs. Any small businessman who runs a labor-intensive business will confirm that.
Paying wages that will entice American workers to engage in hard work will add a staggering amount in new costs to our household budgets, chiefly food.
One nasty little secret here is that we desperately need immigrants who are proficient in math and the sciences. Our schools are not meeting the needs of the 21st century. We need to import brains.
Nope, it's more important to pretend that we are a world-class power as we borrow ourselves into oblivion, that we are way too good to labor and that Mexicans are evil for doing what we refuse to do.
ITM - Using the word @ss is a word that Bev does not understand...You should be using @aa, that is the way Bev spells it.
Spanky-
Aww Feisty that is so cute: "from the right," eh?
But I know old gal, you need to cling to your narrative. But good news - the system is not broken, just enforcement. The laws on the books are just fine, and with proper enforcement would serve very well.
I must say I semi agree with you Spanker since Dick Cheney and George W Bush have not been brought to justice yet for their war crimes.
I have a hypothesis that in 2012 when President Obama is elected to a second those 2 bandits will go down. See our President is very keen on picking his battles.
Right now he has made saving the economy and encouraging the cultivation of certain decorum to prevent the country from slipping back to 18th century .
The Dream Act reminds me of a story my neighbor told me. One night he woke up to find a very drunk girl standing by his bed who had accidently entered the wrong apartment.
Did he call the police? No, he dated her for six months (till she sobered up in AA and dumped him.) Lesson is, if bright young people end up here from Mexico, I say we educate them. Mexico's loss is our gain. (Mexican criminals are another matter. Send them back. How do you tell the difference? SAT scores.)
ITM
Being from Texas can you shed some light on how illegal immigrants are in many cases moderns slaves?
I had a female friend wake up to a strange drunk guy in her bedroom. She shot him. There is no way that I make that story stretch to CIR.
Spanky-
Ok Bev. - please tell us, in your own words [that means no cutting and pasting] how the dream act is not amnesty.
Because the kids were brought here by their parents
The students that would benefit are not citizens, correct.
Correct
==========================================================
@RVZ555
It will be hard to talk to Holder. He's too busy prosecuting Navy Seals and CIA Agents for protecting our country.
Correct waterboarding is illegal and an international crime.
Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to a war crime when he said "I was a big supporter of waterboarding."
Bush admits he approved waterboarding
In his new memoir, former president says his reply was "Damn right," when asked if CIA could waterboard detainee.
The international laws recognize waterboarding as torture - a technique which dates back at least to the Spanish Inquisition. Consequently , the righties are advocating taking our country back to the Dark Ages.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/08/national/main3807334.shtml#ixzz1LyoSG1Nn
George W. Bush cancels visit to Swiss charity gala over fears he could be arrested on torture charges
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354211/George-W-Bush-cancels-Switzerland-visit-fears-arrest-torture-charges.html#ixzz1LyrJFpGy
"It will be hard to talk to Holder. He's too busy prosecuting Navy Seals and CIA Agents for protecting our country.'
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Limited specifics, without a timeline...
President Obama's specialty.
If only he would show the same singularity of purpose he showed in putting a bullet in Osama bin Laden's eye.
If only.
In that instance, he was quite specific...although, we're still discussing the "timeline" in terms of how long Osama bin Laden was alive after being confronted by U.S. Navy Seals.
Whatever...
-sigh-
Aww Bev. even with your limited ability to grasp the issues you must understand that those kids, however they got here, are illegal aliens. Any attempt to confer an alternative status on them would be amnesty.
Simple right?
And Amy dear, I'd really prefer to educate our own children if you don't mind. You know, all that stuff about limited resources and all - every resource we devote to the illegal is less for our kids. Look at the state universities these illegals seek to use. All provided by the tax payer - you know the thing their parents, the illegals, have not contributed toward. And for every illegal that gets in, an American is shut out. Take a look at the acceptance rates at UCLA and Berkley. No way should an illegal get in and an American be denied.
Isn't the $110,000 K-12 education we give them enough? You bet it is. And really Amy, Mexico is a toilet - it really needs these fine kids, it's citizens, back home helping it out. Us, not so much. We got enough unemployed.
k?
"Immigration reform" really has several components, and most people don't consider them at all.
First, of course, is addressing the many millions of undocumented people now in the country. And by the way - they come from all over the world.
Then there's revamping current pathways to legal immigration - a system that is almost impossible to thread through today, and clearly has failed in its purpose.
Third is improving and streamlining procedures for "compassionate" forms of immigration - for refugees, politically-threated persons, people who in various parts of the world worked with American soldiers and diplomats and discover they have become targets as a result.
Fourth is working out a better, more responsive system for people bringing important skills and experience to U.S. companies. A great many of these are not actually "immigrants," but contract hires with capabilities not easily found in the U.S. labor market.
Despite some public sentiment to the contrary, it is absolutely a waste of time to keep screaming "deport them all!" about undocumented people now in the U.S. President Obama's record of immigration enforcement is far, far better than ws President G.W. Bush's - record numbers of illegal entrants are being sent back home. But that doesn't begin to address the scale of need that has grown steadily for well over a decade.
Nor is the approach proposed under Bush really an effective one - create some sort of "waiting line," levy fines and very high fees, check each person's tax status, and so forth. That method is not only impractical in terms ofbrining undocumented persons into the light of day, but also impractical in terms of administration and processing. For the most part, in fact, it looks an awful lot like a thinly-disguised self-deportation scheme coupled with legal extortion.
And it's important to note that despite the mythology about undocumented persons getting welfare, Social Security, placing a drag on local, state and national resources, undocumented workers contribute far more to tax revenues and the economy than they cost. This has been studied, over and over, for decades, and always with the same result: People in that category are afraid to call official notice to themselves and avoid as much as they can all things government. (Just ask the shade of former Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a Republican, who was horribly embarrassed in the mid-1970's when the study he had commissioned revealed that information.)
A pathway to legal residency, open employment and the security of life as a documented person - not necessarily "amnesty," but honestly something fairly close to it - is the only practical solution to this concern.
Mass deportations are not going to happen, or to work. Rounding people up and putting them in camps, as was done with a goodly number of the Cuban marielistas, is inhumane and inconsistent with the nation's values and principles.
No matter how angry some Amereicans are about this, the fact of the matter is that we are becoming a nation of ethnic and racial pluralities, rather than one with a dominant majority. We have to learn to live and work together, with respect. And resolving the multiple problems of immigration policy and administration is a step in that direction.
Simply, and completely wrong. Their cost on our system is outrageous.
You add up the actual costs of illegals is grossly outweighs any and all benefits.
The costs to the UC hospital system alone is staggering. Then we can talk about the prisons, education costs, and everything else.
Illegal immigration is about the rule of law, not "ethnic or racial pluralities."
So of us want the laws enforced. Some of us don't want to continue to foot the bill for people so willing to break our laws.
But hey, maybe I just biased - I was hit by an illegal who was driving without a license, with no registration or insurance, and who was also drunk. And it was his third DUI, but of course what did he care, it was someone else's ID.
Yep, they are great, hardworking people. Until the crime they commit, and there are many, directly effect you or your family.
Take away their ability to work and they will leave. It's is very simple, unless of course you don't want it to be, or you want to make it about race or something else entirely irrelevant.
Lets remember....there are no illegal aliens....they're just unregistered democrats....
JohnA
Please explain this----
A report released this week by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich from the Department of Public Social Services shows that in November 2010, parents who reside in the U.S. illegally collected $53 million in welfare benefits for their native-born children in Los Angeles County, up nearly 3 million from the same period in 2009.
The figures, including $22 million from CalWORKs and $31 million in food stamps, comprises approximately 22 percent of all welfare benefits in Los Angeles County.
Projections based on the monthly figures in 2010 show the total cost for the year will exceed $600 million, up from 2009 when the total sum of $570 million for CalWORKs and food assistance.
“When you add this to $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year – not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education,” said Antonovich.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/report-la-county-welfare-benefits-for-illegals-top-600m/
There were 2.8 million illegal immigrants living in California in 2006, the last year for which there are relatively good figures, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. That represented about 8% of the state's population and roughly a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants. About 90% of California's illegal immigrants were from Latin America; 65% from Mexico.
There are roughly 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons, representing 11% of all inmates. That's costing $970 million during the current fiscal year. The feds kick in a measly $111 million, leaving the state with an $859 million tab.
Schools are the toughest to calculate. Administrators don't ask kids about citizenship status. Anyway, many children of illegal immigrants were born in this country and automatically became U.S. citizens.
If you figure that the children of illegal immigrants attending K-12 schools approximates the proportion of illegal immigrants in the population, the bill currently comes to roughly $4 billion. Most is state money; some local property taxes.
Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare, called CalWORKs. But their citizen children are. Roughly 190,000 kids are receiving welfare checks that pass through their parents. The cost: about $500 million, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2/2
For the entire article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2
Does he really expect to get re-elected on an immigration reform platform if the job market is still in the tank, oil prices at $5 and foreclosures at an all time high? This was like taking on healthcare when unemployment was 10%.
I don't get it.. immigration reform before job creation, oil prices, 3 wars, the debt ceiling and the deficit.
Immigration reform is sooooo far down my list of priorities and I'm guessing most of the countries.
Is he just courting the Hispanic vote?
My guess would be yes. He has seen the poll numbers showing that he has basically lost independents. He has lost a lot of young people too from his 2008 coalition. Recent reports have shown that he is regaining his support from the Gay community due to the repeal of DADT. So, he has to court other segments of his election coalition and you can bet that he'll do it by offering what they want. He is a politician.
BTW Immigration reform is going nowhere when reports like this come up.
www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/nyregion/albany-lawmakers-protest-giving-immigrant-data-to-us.html?_r=1&hpw
Basically some state lawmakers in NY want to opt out of a federal program because people were being deported ONLY because they are here illegally. Can we accept that illegal entry to a country is a crime? Does anyone expect to enter any other country illegally and be allowed to stay there as long as you don't commit another crime? These lawmakers are just short of being a fifth column. It seems they worry more over illegal aliens than their legal constituents.
Immigration reform to Obama is nothing more than a three card Monte game against the Hispanics to get their vote. He'll promise them the world, only to not deliver. Like most of all Obama's promises, this is nothing but a repeat of what Obama promised in 2008. The guy is all fluff.
Yes, and by co-opting the issue, he makes it hard for Republicans to confront him there. Same thing with health care reform. Immigration was never really a high-priority issue, anyway, except for its usefulness as a wedge. By putting a proposal out there, he shuts up republicans, who always try to claim the high ground, but in reality have done almost nothing about it, except for border security.
Given a choice to do something or nothing, republicans almost always choose nothing, but they do it loudly, when they can.
Essentially, Ira, yes he is - but in that light, Obama is no different from every other politician in the border states with the possible exception of Arizona.
Immigration reform is a touchy issue because of the financial and cultural impact the mass exodus of Hispanics has had on the nation; I really, really hate to think that the lip service done by state and federal leadership will only turn to actual resolution in the event of tensions boiling up to the point of exchanged blows.
Like all our problems, skirting the issue to attract votes will only exacerbate things in the long-term.
Immigration is tied to growing our economy and job creation. It's not limited to just Hispanic immigrants...just today it is...for what ever priority or reason President Obama puts on it. We need to grow the economy by $4 trillion dollars and it must include a better path for immigrants to become US citizens.
Immigration is a net benefit to our economy. Many pay income tax when they don't have to and many use invalid social security numbers and will never file a claim for benefits. Some own property and pay property tax, as well as sales and gasoline excise tax. They are keenly aware that taxes pay for schools for their children and other public services.
Good Afternoon Anna Molly:
It largely is a political move. As you say, it removes a GOT/TP talking point and it is a statement to the Hispanic community that they have not been forgotten. Bringing this issue to a vote is something the Dems can show that the Republicans care only about "me first".
ed3891..
Politics aside, the idea of rounding up alll the illegals in this country and deporting them is just absurd. Anyone advocating that idea needs to consider that it would take and eternity and cost a fortune.
Tin hat and antenna on. Let's hire all the unemployed in the country as deputy border patrol agents at minimun wage. Kill 2 birds with one stone.
Come on Ira - you recognize pandering when you see it.
And AM, he sure is putting the democrats up for re-election in a heck of a bind. Like Ron has highlighted - should they actually have the balls to bring it to a vote, in the Senate I presume, then those hapless dems will have to actually vote, and that is so not what they want to do on this issue.
Boy do I hope Ron is correct and they force the issue. Go get 'em Harry [but be careful and don't hurt yourself].
When he invited a panel of Latino media personalities rather than a panel of Legislators to launch another effort at CIR, I think he made it clear that he knows CIR is a non-starter but he still hopes that Hispanics like him.
Ira:
That's really the sad thing, isn't it? This issue gets mucked down by a fringe group that honest-to-God expects we can just up and bulldoze ten or eleven million people out of the country - the same fringe group, I imagine, that would've gleefully put up "Help Wanted - No Irish Need Apply" signs on their businesses a century ago.
What limited specifics Obama has listed I generally agree with - minus the DREAM act. It's not that I'm not empathetic of the reasoning behind it; it's that I don't believe anything but a prospective student's academic achievements should be taken into consideration when applying to college.
I'm going to disagree about the "pandering"----it seems to me that someone who won 67% of the Hispanic vote in 08 and has an campaign infrastructure geared to encouraging new voters with strong use of the social media doesn't really have to pander to the Hispanic community. I think they will show up for him in 2012. I have learned through observing the President that he does what he thinks is right and goes about keeping his campaign promises and immigration reform was one of them.
Spanky-..
I'm the one that raised the question about him courting the Hispanic/Latino vote.
Think that ggm-3451879 comment is very relevant. Since he promised a path to citizenship during his last campain and has done nothing...the guy had more relevant things on his plate....he needs to do do something cause he still hopes they like him.
Let's see they all got here on their own, they certainly can leave on their own. They just don't want to.
Just pass a law that anyone caught hiring an illegal gets fined $10k and loses their business license - on the first offense.
Then sit back and watch them head home. Besides Mexico need them. It's a real crap hole that good really benefit from these fine, hardworking citizaens. Sure they all break multiple laws, but they are really good, hard working people, right?
Space here in the UC system is extremely limited,highly subsidized by the taxe So we are really going to continue to allow illegals to get in while excluding thousands of citizens? Really, that's the system we want?
Spanky-
Ok, now you're just being Spanky..posting nonesense.
Leave on their own...do we just say please and expect them to go. Would you?
It's already federal law to knowingly hire illegal's. That's why when you start a job they ask for a social security number and drivers license.
We're not talking about continuing to let illegals get IN. We're talking about the ones that are ALREADY HERE.
Take the ginko and try to keep up.
Spanky--as an attorney surely you would not say that a minor child who entered into the country illegally (brought by his parents) had the capacity to be committing a crime? Therefore, giving that child a path to citizenship wouldn't be amnesty.
Bet you anything Spanky does NOT reply to this one. Kinda of catches him with his lawyer pants down.
The kid is here illegally, a path would therefore be amnesty. While I'm not an immigration attorney I do pay taxes an I want them all out. But, and this comes up around here all the time, what kind of a parent would leave their kid behind?
And then you got them enrolling in the university sytem at 1. a huge cost to the taxpayer, and 2. to the exclusion of legal residents. Simply not fair to exclude lawful residents in favor of illeagals.
Think of all the immigrants that are waiting in line. Why do they get screwed because some decided to break our laws? Again, punishing the employers will cause them to self deport. Take a look at Arizona Ira. Now why do you suppose so many states are now copying it? Cause cracking down works.
But why don't you, Steeler, look up the immigration law and give us the definition of an alien. I suspect it includes children. How about it Steeler? Care to give us a lesson?
And Frank, perhaps you, when not too concerned about my "lawyer pants," could also look up the immigration code. Come Frank it think you could play a good attorney around here. Give it a shot buddy, might be fun.
Spanky,
Arizona also has the following law to prove citizenship. Let"s noy use Az as an example.
"Part of the controversial Arizona birther bill passed on Wednesday makes a certificate of circumcision (given to parent of a Jewish child after the religiously significant procedure is performed) acceptable proof of American citizenship for presidential candidates. While candidates won't be asked to "whip it out" in the State House, a documented circumcision will join a verified Christian baptism, postpartum hospital records and long-form birth certificiates (sic) as proof that candidates are indeed Americans."
Deal?
Ira, I'll whip mine out anytime.
Illegal is illegal Ira. Or shall we just ignore the illegal part?
And gosh Ira, why pick on the jews in your example? Ain't they got enough problems? But always noce to use religious examples?
Oh and Frank, where did you run off to? What's the matter you lose internet connection? Can't google immigration laws?
Dog gone it.
Spanky-
Notice the quotes around the paragraph..that's how the law is written, word for word..I didn't use change a word. Nice try trying to make it a religious issue.
Illegal is illegal...yep...that makes it right like when it was illegal for black's to drink out of a white drinking fountain, sit at a lunch counter or ride in the front of the bus or go to white schools. Legal doesn't make all things right. You're a lawyer, you should know better than anyone.
Incidently. Just asking. Do you take the other side, the unpopular side, on purpose just for fun to exercise your argumentative skills.
Iras are you saying that amnesty is the popular side?
What's the matter, you don't want to whip yours out?
Don't know where you live Ira, but they have pretty much run Cali over. We are literally sinking under their weight. It's ugly. And I know you see the objective difference between immigration and racial issues. Or should I say sovereignty?
Spanky-
Ira, are you saying that amnesty is the popular side?...
You make amnesty sound like a dirty word. Nixon got amnesty as well as the people that went to Canada to avoid the draft during Viet Nam. Rather than spending a fortune hunting them down, fine them and provide a path to citizenship. They're here and you can never gather up 10 or 20 million people and deport them. Then the question of the kids born here comes up. Yep...amnesty is the popular side.
What's the matter, you don't want to whip yours out?....
Not for you my friend, not for you.
Have a good night...hey, you just like to argue don't you.
Actually, what states are "copying" the Arizona law? After all the hype, common sense is still holding and only Utah has passed a watered down version of a "guest worker" license. (The R establishment knows just what will happen to individual state economies without that workforce--That's why they're not joining in except when the red meat needs to be thrown to their wing nut base at election time. bubba may scream his hate, but he isn't eager to get his hands dirty in the fields and processing plants and other grunt work.) This is just moving the R party further into the arms of extremism and out of relevancy as a governing party--the party of No is right...no choice, no immigration, no new taxes, no balancing the budget, no science, no jobs, no trade, no ideas will equal no political power.
Sweet - limited specifics....WTF is obama thinking?? How does this type of approach create any type of consensus or policy?
Shouldn't Americans expect more from a POTUS than continual rhetoric oriented solely towards reelection?
Shouldn't they expect more from the Speaker of the House of Representatives than to pursue an agenda, the main theme of which is -- admittedly -- to get the POTUS de-elected?
No wonder nothing ever gets done.
Of course he won't get credit for this either...
Something old, something new, something borrowed (like money from the Chinese) . . .
Obama isn't about specifics. See his response to Rep Ryan's budget proposal for details. Obama is more into being a demagogue, being critical of others while offering few if any specifics on what he'd do, you know, seeing he's the Presdient and all.
If you're an Obama kool-aide drinker, then no. But for the rest of the population, you would expect that Fluffy Obama would actually come up with something of substance. He's just playing the Hispanics for their votes.
I give him credit just as I give him credit for ending OBL existence.
JoAnna: How is that different from George W. Bush? My God, he did the same thing when he was governor of Texas!
Maybe, but he wouldn't be completely alone in that, now would he? Seems to me that George Bush was a pretty big panderer to the Hispanic vote, as well.
Besides, it seems to me that your premise is a bit offbase. The Dream Act is mighty substantive -- otherwise, why are Republicans so strongly opposed to it?
Anna - care to expound on any political party NOT wishing the opposition leadership to be reelected?
Rather begs the question also of obamas continued rhetoric derailing the rights efforts towards legislative actions. I always thought that the POTUS's job discription was to encourage both sides to work together to take America foreward. So far all I have seen from obama and his body language is "that it is and always will be my way". Kind of flys in the face of carnegies book "How to win friends and influence people" doesn't it?
Fiesty - not to worry, bush didn't get much legislative immigration reform support from congress either. Ira did bring up a very valid point (post 2).
Obviously, but unwittingly, I'm sure, you've actually pointed to the EXACT problem. It's unseemly for a Congressional leader to announce removal of the President as your first-priority item, when your REAL job is to work with the President, to cooperate in getting things done, and to LEAD. The position of Speaker of the House is NOT the same as head of the party. But that's how Boehner treats it, and for that reason alone, not to mention everything else, such as his whiny admission that he doesn't have the skills negotiate with labor unions, he is not fit to be Speaker. He seems to see his role as taking pot shots instead of leading.
You can say what you want about Obama's leadership style, but at least he has one. Boehner, not so much. Take for example his recent statement about the debt ceiling. He has no business saying such an irresponsible thing, but all he cares about is the political expediency. At some point he has to stop being so busy keeping his job that he forgets to DO his job (THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT -- Watch it and learn something).
Bush was unfortunately not pandering. He damn near granted them all amnesty a few years back. Good news is there was a huge uprising against it. The public does not want amnesty, or a "path to citizenship", try as you all might.
I kinda wish he focus on something slightly more important, like energy and food costs. At the end of the day it's the purchasers of these items all of us] that will determine his re-election, not a relatively small group that supports amnesty.
No, this is just what you THINK we say because you never really listen.
You're too busy wallowing in your stereotypes. Try paying more attention.
@AM
I'm sorry I need clarification on this. Are you saying Bush did a better job than Obama because he deported fewer illegal aliens?
Spanky: Most of us who dwell in reality understand that it would be the height of insanity to round up and ship off that many people. Can you imagine the cost to the states and the federal government were such such an undertaking engaged in? Not to mention the fact that such a hardline approach could very well spark an uprising.
For the sake of argument, I will admit that it should never have gotten to this point in the first place - never should such a broad swathe of people been allowed to take root in the country wholly outside the proper channels.
That said, we are where we are now and hindsight is, as always, 20/20. Better to reform our policy to ensure what's been happening for the last quarter-century doesn't happen going forward; certainly better to gradually bring these people into the fold presuming they pay their dues than remorsely kick them out the door.
I'm sure you do because the very notion that democrats might not like illegal immigration either has never occurred to your closed conservative minds -- no matter how many times we try to tell you, it doesn't seem to penetrate.
But you certainly highlight the main point -- which is that Bush couldn't even get THAT right. Too busy looking under his desk for Osama bin Laden.
Sorry ed, but the existing laws just need to be enforced. They came and they can leave, on their own. Uprising? That's funny. Guess it'd be an uprising of lawbreakers and criminals. THose folk are not typically prone to call attention to themselves.
Good news is the economic pressures are already causing many to leave and many towns and neighborhoods to enforce. But that's mainly because it's gotten so bad.
Anna, my personal take on the debt ceiling is that the right wants to see a COMMITMENT from the left on addressing and committing to spending cuts. Not to specific areas of cuts but agreeing that cuts need to be made.
Surely you can't believe that increasing taxes can be the only solution.
Regardless of your personal opinion on where fault lies, isn't it time to get us back to fiscal responsibility? No one is going to get out of this without feeling economic pain or changing how we viewed life in the past.
No, not at all. I'm all for cuts, starting with defense. I just don't believe that tax increases should be off the table, which is another one of Boehner's irresponsible statements. Off the table, but only in the sense that the wealthy won't have to pay more for anything. On the table in the sense that republicans propose making others pay more for things, like senior health care, in effect RAISING their taxes.
You never saw me call anyone here that at any time, but I've been called a few things along similar lines, myself. ITM, for example, is especially good at making nasty, disparaging, personal comments.
Saying that we believe some sort of assimilation has to be included in any proposed solution merely makes us realists, as opposed to the fantasy world of absolutism that you conservatives espouse.
Let me make myself plain. I'm not FOR illegal immigration (just like I'm not FOR abortion, of which I have frequently been accused by conservatives), but I also realize that the immigration cat is already out of the bag, and being an especially big cat, which has grown even larger since it arrived here, it will be VERY hard to put back in.
What's YOUR plan for that, boys?
Continued and enhanced enforcement. Zero tolerance for any illegal caught by the police. Immediate deportation unless they are accused of a felony (misdemeanor means deportation). Any prospect of amnesty, should be removed from the table. This way any potential incentive to legalization is removed, and they may leave of their own volition. At the same time, new (higher) quotas for legal immigration should be introduced based on the unemployment situation. I know that this is a country of immigrants but guess what times change and so must we.
On the subject of taxes the republicans actually have a loop-hole that was in Ryan's proposal. You can take tax hikes off the table but reform the tax code to remove many of the deductions currently available. For example, I don't want to pay for abortions at PP. I am not against abortion if paid for by the patient. Similarly, I am paying a higher tax rate because of deductions that can claimed for example every child. I don't see why I should subsidize these religious freaks who want to have double digit families. Again, I am not stopping them, I just don't see why I should pay for it.
Just saw this one and I like it.
We are NOT a bi-lingual country and I personally do not want to become one.
Actually, and you'll probably faint when you see these words, you have a point, there -- especially as to the last. Somewhere along the line, we seem to have formed a disconnect between population growth and the use of resources. Government has no business incenting population growth and and actually making it cheaper for those families who use more resources. People who use more public resources should pay more, and that includes the wealthy, whose corporations use more of the public infrastructure than citizens do. Companies whose truckers cause all that damage to the highways should pay for it, rather than making the average citizen pay for it. But as far as Planned Parenthood goes, if you really would like to disincent population growth, make birth control readily available and teach people how to use it. Taking away access to birth control for poor women is actually counterproductive to your second goal.
An official language is one thing, but this goes a bit too far for me. If schools can arrange their holidays around Christmas, then schools can tolerate a simple secular observance of Cinco de Mayo. The flag thing was wrong in the sense that it was used for taunting. The American flag is on display in schools every day of the year. You don't need to wave it under anyone's nose. But I'll assume from that, that you're also for getting the Confederate flag out of all schools, and off the tops of all public buildings, as well, as being absolutely inconsistent with the idea of a blended society.
I don't think I said that, at all. You just assumed that was what I said because you wanted to. Go back and re-read. I said the American flag was being used as a taunt, which it was, and which is something altogether different, and in your heart of hearts you know it is.
If you don't want any multi-culturalism in the schools, then you'd better make sure the cafeteria doesn't sell spaghetti or tacos and students do not wear green on St. Patrick's Day. Pemmican and maize loaves will be de rigueur for school lunches, and only red-white-and-blue clothing will be allowed.
Seriously.
If anything is anti-"American," in the pluralistic sense of that word, then it is the Confederate flag. Retain it if you want, but then stop talking about multi-culturalism only as it relates to ethnic minorities. I'm opposed to retaining the Confederate flag as any kind of official symbol of anything, because the only meaning it has is secessionist. And if that isn't somehow contrary to our "shared" values, then a Cinco de Mayo celebration certainly doesn't qualify, either.
Even Europe has given up on muilti-culturalism. Too bad the Mexican flag flies all over in the So. West. It's just a sad reality - many of the illegals have absolutely no intention of becoming American. They are here to work then go back. Too bad they 1. don't pay taxes, 2. commit id theft, 3. commit a host of other crimes everyday. And that's just the good ones. Many come just for the crime. Any of you all got an MS-13 chapter in your fair city? Those are some great fellas, along with the Mexican Mafia of course.
Unfortunately there are huge sections of Cali that are 100% Mexican. It's very sad, cause Mexico is a toilet.
But good news all, we may have had a big jump start on the whole thing, but they are headed your all's way.
Just remember to max out you uninsured motorist coverage. I speak from personal experience - they have no licenses, no insurance, and have a proclivity to drive drunk. via con dios, amigos.
In my neighborhood we have plenty of homes (clown houses) with Mexico Flags waving. I think its so insulting, you're in a different country show so respect it.
Spanky, No licenses or insurance and the cars they drive are so damaged they just walk away from the accident or never pick them up at the tow yard.
Again. Mexico is a toilet. I kinda think it's a cultural thing.
Watched the "intelligence suared 2" debate last night on bloombergTV. The topic of debate was "don't give us your tired, etc..."
Interesting arguments made by both sides.
My basic take on it was why can't we just enforce our current immigration laws???
Did you EVER ask George W. Bush that same question?
The failure to enforce immigration laws began, by the way, with St. Ronald Reagan, who never put the mechanisms in place to enforce the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 against business owners. Now I wonder why that was.
On second thought, no, I don't.
Anna - Hard to ask a question when you don't know the question at the time in question.
As far as reagan goes, didn't he promote an "amnesty program" for illegal immigrants? As for the specifics, why didn't the honorable tip o'neil see that it was included? Surely you don't mean to suggest that reagan used his non'existant powers of a line item veto to delete it.
Take an hour to watch the debate, not sure when it will next be on or if it is already available for online viewing.
Yep - Reagan screwed the pooch. We got 3 million illegals as citizens in 1986. They said it'd bo the only time it would ever happen. They lied, it got way worse. But now we have 20 million. If we don't start to vigorously enforce the border we will have another 20 million in 5 years.
Mexico is getting totally out of control. The violence coming from there alone should be enough to put the military on the border. 75 miles into Arizona there are places so dangerous the Feds have posted signs advising us to stay out.
That is simply ridiculous. Could you imagine AM -a huge swath of Wisconsin that was too dangerous for you to travel in because it was literally taken over by people from a different country? I'd piss you off, no?
AM, looks like you've got a bad case of Bush-ides today too. It's clearly becoming an epidemic among the Liberals today, it's all they want to talk about. Odd that you keep comparing what you Libs have termed the "Worst President Ever" to the one you worship today. One would think you'd set the bar a little higher.
That would be Madison.
I have no idea why you would NOT have known the question as George W. Bush also proposed reforming immigration laws -- which Republicans like to point to and take credit for -- and those laws had already been reformed twice in the 15 years prior to Bush's election. Immigration was rather an issue in the early 2000s, mostly because Republicans thought it would make a useful wedge to drive their base apart from the Hispanic population.
As for Reagan, there WAS amnesty included in the bill, and several million illegal aliens took advantage. Feel free to look that up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
The main rap against Reagan is that he exercised his prerogative as Chief Executive NOT to create the necessary enforcement mechanisms against employers and "wink-winked" at those employers who chose to avoid their obligations under the law by hiring "independent contractors," rather than employees. A practice that has been practiced by many conservative business leaders in other contexts as well, such as Bill Gates, to avoid providing employees with benefits. In case you're unfamiliar, that was the Vizcaino case.
Republicans as scofflaws. Who knew?
Well, then, I guess there's no reason to leave the light on for you.
Not fair JAS1 = Madison is where that "sleeping giant" lives. You know the one that was awoken during the Prosser election and bounced him right on out because he was a Walker supporter.
Yep, Madison, where sleeping giants, ummm, sleep peacefully.
Heck I bet AM has never dined on Menudo, or even experienced the joys of 5 rolled tacos with Guacamole for Roberto's Taco Shop # 115. Poor AM.
You either, I guess.
Yes, I did that this weekend. They call those people Norwegians.
Anna - as life moves forward we should all continue to learn. Seem to recall that bush wasn't able to get meaningful immigration reform done either.
Ever hear the term "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Just because obama can't maintain focus on the real 'squeeky wheel" means that he gets a pass on flitting like a butterfly from one issue to the next.
In going back to reagan, now you expect us to believe that he failed in his...
Basically you seem to imply that he should have sent it back to congress for revision. Maybe so, for we all know that hindsight is 20/20.\
BTW - how far back would you like to go within the context of "independent contractors"?
See? This is another sort of stereotype that conservatives like to assign to liberals. I'm all FOR an official language in this country, as actually being the more liberal position to take. The whole point of a melting pot is for people to blend together as a society. Multi-culturalism, to me, means honoring, and not disparaging, the cultures of others. But to be a "nation," some values must be shared, and some things just have to be unified.
So far we agree. But conservatives usually don't get that point; you just assume we disagree without ever listening to what our true positions are, while, at the same time, calling us every name you can think of instead of making a rational response of your own.
And here's the main point: Ironically, of course, only the federal government can cause the kind of blending that you are talking about to occur. Conservatives seem to miss that point, as well.
I don't care whether he did that or not. I just get tired of all the revisionism about Reagan. He wasn't the law-and-order saint that you republicans like to paint him as being, and it was his lackadaisical, look-the-other-way enforcement of the new immigration law that set the tone for the next couple of decades.
Not sure what you mean, but I'll assume there's a great big "other shoe" just hanging there, waiting to drop. So why don't you just save time and drop it. ;-)
Why anna, I am not a lawyer and understanding of all the vagaries of legal definitions. Seems that I was thinking along the same lines as you. What were you going to do with your other shoe? But I digress, our two views of what constitutes an "independent contractor" are different within the context of work related backgrounds. My understanding has always been that they are paid more because they do not receive company benefits and are contracted only for a set time limit or project. Based on your reference to microsoft and what I have read today on the subject of permaployees you do have a different take.
Reagan being a "law and order saint"? Can't say I have heard that before. I can't even think of any politician aas being a "law and order saint" or any that didn't "look the other way" at times. Really anna we are talking politicians.
BTW - I like asking questions in order to either clarify anothers position or to learn. Sometimes even to "drop the other shoe". <chuckle>
A discussion of shoes always begins with size. You first. ;-)
As for independent contractors, it's not as easy as you think. As you found out from your research, there are different standards under different laws, and it doesn't always mean they get paid more or that they actually work as LTEs or project employees. You can't legally make someone an independent contractor just by calling them that, or even by contract, because some laws, such as tax laws, wage and hour laws, worker's comp, benefits laws, and unemployment insurance, cannot be waived.
In short, it's complicated and wide open for abuse.
p.s. I wasn't going to do anything with MY shoe. I'm barefoot. I was leaving that up to you.
anna - 12W :)
x
reserving a page one space anna?
I'm not that smart, American, nor am I involved in those sorts of strategies.
I simply misplaced a reply -- to you, ironically -- and caught it while there was still time.
I wondered what all those little X's I've been seeing were about. :o
no one ever said you weren't a sweety. lol It does suck when you think you have made a reply to the right comment, only to find that it hadn't. been there too.
And just what makes you people think that Illegals WANT to become citizens?
It's an issue of financial capacity, largely - have you seen the conversion rate of the peso to the dollar, even the weak dollar? Do you know how lousy wages in Mexico are, nevermind the rest of south and central America?
It costs an arm and a leg to immigrate legally. Even the people I know around here who are legal were only able to achieve that status after they entered America illegally and fought for jobs with better wages - in some cases saving up for years to obtain their paperwork.
We ask for the poor and the hungry - but we sure as hell don't make it cost-effective for them to get through the gate to begin with.
RVZ555: Worked too damn hard doing...what? Screwing the Iroquois out of their land? Breaking every tribal treaty ever negotiated? Concerning the idea that everyone has the opportunity to live here, isn't that kinda-sorta implied by the inscription on Lady Liberty's tablet?
Not that I don't find your belief that only WASPs deserve to live here adorable, but it is rather infantile.
Since you prefer the garb of Bill the Butcher, allow me to don the mantle of Amsterdam: a challenge to settle, for good and all, who holds sway over the Five Points.
By all means, bring whatever blades you wish, but no pistols~
everyone may be interested in the following debate...
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/americas-house-divided-immigration/
If nothing else, you may gain more insight into the challenges of immigration.
At least it is more informative than listening to obama talk about moats and alligators
Because it would irritate the conservatives who hate them? Just a guess...
I grew up in a small farm town in California, the Portuguese owned the dairy's, the Whites and Mexicans owned the farms and the mexicans worked at all of it. I had friends that were born in america but the parents were mexican. I did not understand then and anothing has changed since Iw as a kid. If you wanted to come and be a citizen you got on a boat checked in at Ellis Island and that was it.
When was a law enacted for it to be a crime to work in the US?
I asked myself as a kid back then and now why not just change the law back and be done with it.
The patrons can take illegals make millions off them and then cut them loose when they are injured hurt or don't need them, so they have it good if we have a bad imigration policy. This I have seen personally.
I do not have the answers, but I doubt in my lifetime we see this getting fixed, no matter what party panders to the hispanics.
No reform is needed on this issue. The Immigration Laws are already on the books, and they are fair for everyone that legally wants to become a citizen. The enforcement of the current Immigration Laws must be followed. What about the economy? What about jobs? What about the national debt? Our nation needs to concentrate on these issues now. The Immigration Laws are very straight forward, however the enforcement of these laws consistently is not.
Agreed no reform on immigration laws but we also need to start getting a lot tougher on businesses that hire them. If can't find work they will go home on their own.
And you'll be out there picking tomatoes and lettuce? Sure you will. You'll be on here whining about the price of tomatoes and lettuce and claiming it's the President's fault for not caring about those who work for a living.
Several year ago while in downtown Boise on business, I witnessed a large demonstration around the capital building.Watching the local news later that night I found out what the issue was. The Idaho legislature was being asked to put a limit on how low farmers could pay illegal farm workers. There was no talk about sending them back, or arresting them, just a lot of hot air about how lucky they were being able to make 50 cents an hour, and why they needed to be grateful. Needless to say the people demonstrating, were asking for a bottom limit to what they could be paid.
It seems to me the real split on this issue is between republicans. On the one hand they want the cheap labor, on the other they want to send back the illegals who are willing to work for cheap. The President needs to let them figure it out.
How much money do republicans want to spend sending illegals home, and are they willing to pay more taxes in order to do so?
Have you ever considered how much it costs all taxpaying citizens to take care of illegals?
Healthcare costs - Estimates are that 20-40% of uncompensated (“free”) medical services are provided to people in the US illegally. The actual number may be much higher.
California in 2004 - The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
I think that figure is pulled out of thin air, we really have no way of knowing, it may be right it may be wrong. Either way I doubt very much that it would lower my bill one cent if all unpaid for health care was to disappear.
However it does not answer the question. How much are you willing to pay to send them all back, and will you pay more taxes to do so?
Patrick
As posted above---
A report released this week by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich from the Department of Public Social Services shows that in November 2010, parents who reside in the U.S. illegally collected $53 million in welfare benefits for their native-born children in Los Angeles County, up nearly 3 million from the same period in 2009.
The figures, including $22 million from CalWORKs and $31 million in food stamps, comprises approximately 22 percent of all welfare benefits in Los Angeles County.
Projections based on the monthly figures in 2010 show the total cost for the year will exceed $600 million, up from 2009 when the total sum of $570 million for CalWORKs and food assistance.
“When you add this to $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year – not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education,” said Antonovich.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/report-la-county-welfare-benefits-for-illegals-top-600m/
There were 2.8 million illegal immigrants living in California in 2006, the last year for which there are relatively good figures, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. That represented about 8% of the state's population and roughly a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants. About 90% of California's illegal immigrants were from Latin America; 65% from Mexico.
There are roughly 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons, representing 11% of all inmates. That's costing $970 million during the current fiscal year. The feds kick in a measly $111 million, leaving the state with an $859 million tab.
Schools are the toughest to calculate. Administrators don't ask kids about citizenship status. Anyway, many children of illegal immigrants were born in this country and automatically became U.S. citizens.
If you figure that the children of illegal immigrants attending K-12 schools approximates the proportion of illegal immigrants in the population, the bill currently comes to roughly $4 billion. Most is state money; some local property taxes.
Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare, called CalWORKs. But their citizen children are. Roughly 190,000 kids are receiving welfare checks that pass through their parents. The cost: about $500 million, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2/2
For the entire article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2
As far as sending them back-- All we gotta do is take the cost of sending them back out of the Country of Origin's Foreign Aid before it gets it.
What ever it takes! It is well worth the investment to send them back and secure the border. Why don't you give amnesty to jihadists and criminals? They might take up a job and contribute to the social security.
What ever happened to your common sense you think before you start rewarding criminals? I know Obama's motivation of votes but what is yours?
This is not a Republican vs Democrat to me. This is doing what is right. By giving a free pass to criminals who came here illegally is a slap in the face to all those who have done what it takes. Also, those who come here illegally are stealing from all citizens of this country. Their is no reason you or anyone else can give that would ok amnesty for these criminals. All you are doing is encouraging more to come for a free ride.
The author of the article might want to look up the meaning of "engender" in the dictionary. It's not a synonym for "endear".
mexicans are facing similar treatment like the Irish in the 1800's
...he also promised free college, end the wars, close gitmo, etc....don't fall for "HOPE I'll CHANGE"
The president esta loco en la cabeza.
The Immigration Reform Law Institute estimates that, as a result of the approximately 25,000 undocumented students in the state’s public colleges who can receive in-state tuition benefits, California universities will lose over $200 million of revenue from tuition. Providing undocumented workers with reduced tuition costs will only enhance the burden on California’s legal citizens. Because of this the system is quickly becoming unaffordable for many of the state’s legal residents. The rising costs of in-state tuition can be offset partially by revenue from out-of-state tuition, but filling the state’s university systems with undocumented students paying a reduced tuition eliminates this possibility.
Providing undocumented students in-state tuition is extremely costly. It is not fair for the legal residents of California and prospective out-of-state students to suffer for the benefit and well-being of undocumented students.
Unintended consequence.
The only real solution is massive deportation of all illegal aliens. We give Pakistan billions of dollars each year. Take that money and use it to deport all illegal aliens living in the United States. The Federal Government has done an awful job of enforcing the law. We need to go after all the employers of these illegal aliens. Fine the employers. If we make it impossible to get employment in the United States and the risk is greater that they will be caught. The illegals will go home on their own.
This is all just simply odd. Several times a week I, along with tens thousands of others drive down a street in Salt Lake City, and every time I pass a particular national home improvement center, there are dozens of day laborers milling around, waiting for someone to hire them. My guess is 99%, if not all, are illegal. Who hires them? in this most conservative of places, who hires them?
So this is not Obama's problem, we all own it. And every time you whine about paying minimum wage, you are part of the problem.
I guess many of you who have made the comment regarding being against requiring a person to learn English when they come into this country, don't remember that if our ancestors did not learn English, none of us today would know how to communicate with one another today. If you want to live and work in this country, learn how to speak English. Why should we have to learn another person's language in order to communicate with them?
We must grant amnesty now. There are too many jobs and not enough workers to do them, we have a surplus of jobs so we must get as many people as possible here to do that...
Oh, unemployment is around 9%, with real unemployment including the disaffected who quit looking around 12-14%? that's inconvenient to my point isn't it?
Well it might help Obama get elected, screw the economy!
Or does someone have an economic principle by which adding supply increases demand?
Obama is pandering for votes. During his speechifying, did you hear any specifics as to how he would achieve this immigration reform? When it would occur and how he would guide it through Congress?
It's only words to achieve votes folks.
After all: IT'S GOOD TO BE KING! OR IS THAT ROCK STAR PRESIDENT?
And the R's are forming another one of their circular firing squads. Try to look beyond your own fog for a moment, We are not going to round up and deport 12 million people. He's putting the emphasis right where it needs to be. Border security is tighter than its ever been, and the R's are still selling the fiction that it's not.
It's absoultely the right thing to do (as Bush tried as well) to move toward some kind of immigration reform, beginning with the Dream Act. (Why on earth anyone would want to ensure millions of kids who were brought here cannot get an education is beyond me. They're HERE. You want them unemployed and uneducated? How does that make sense---except for your own concept of revenge against their parents?)
And for those of you yelling "politics", it's just common sense. We are not Europe. We do not isolate and demonize immigrants (Ok, yes, we actually do, but then we always eventually make peace--with the Poles, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Italians and the Jews...after of course a whole lot of ugliness for a good many years.)
The emphasis should be to plug the hole before you award the illegals trophy of citizenship or jobs! Where were you for the last two years and why is this your focus all of a sudden instead of job creation and debt reduction?
When you cannot employ legal citizens why do you need illegals? You irresponsible vote panderer?
AP,
If you live in a border state, you may disagree with you statement that security is tighter than it has ever been. The illegals are flooding through the fences, moving people and drugs like never before. And where Obama stationed the Guard, the illegals moved over to a less secure area. And when you look at the Guard deployment, they were not on the line but in the rear with administrative duties.
Now the Guard is being removed, the funds for their deployment spent, with little accomplished. It was part of the Obama image game that he plays well. But then again, it is all about the Obama image, not the decision-making. No leadership Obama!
am proving here to all public that,osama bin laden has not dead..osama is alive he is around the corner......those say dead of osama bin laden lie bad osama is alive...
well,
i ll stand here to exprssion motion against public that,osama bin laden has dead ..well,what true comes with this incidence am going to believe and i ll never believe that osama bin laden has dead...osama is not dead osama is alive.....unless i naked dead body of osama bin laden ..those who are saying soo should pretend is not true that osama has dead.......ur goodness
If this guy is re-elected then we deserve everything these jokers jam down our throats!!!!
Once again he offers nothing but blame for others and the dems go along with it.When will the mainstrean media (lol) challenge him ? His party has had 2 years to pass this and have done nothing. They had 2 years to strip the oil companies of there tax credits and did nothing.
Will we ever learn?