[subego]

Administration says it will conduct case-by-case review on deportation - CNN.com

Though I think there's some legitimate questions as to whether the executive can ride roughshod over the legislature like this, from a strictly policy perspective it's about frigging time.

[Kerrigan]

The barbarians have breached the gate...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The barbarians have breached the gate...

And proceed to pick our vegetables.

[Kerrigan]

. . . and get racial preference at state funded universities.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The barbarians have breached the gate...

That's a little offensive, don't you think?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

. . . and get racial preference at state funded universities.

God forbid they get past picking vegetables.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a little offensive, don't you think?

Yes.

[Kerrigan]

My bad, I thought race-based preference was wrong?

[besson3c]

This thread is off to a great start!

[Kerrigan]

Yeah I guess it's kinda hard to defend a race-based preference system used in government, academia and elsewhere for people who aren't even citizens. But a few meaningless replies illustrates this point nicely, fellas.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yeah I guess it's kinda hard to defend a race-based preference system used in government, academia and elsewhere for people who aren't even citizens. But a few meaningless replies illustrates this point nicely, fellas.

Your "barbarian" reply was equally meaningless, with a heavy dollop of obnoxiousness.

Like begets like.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yeah I guess it's kinda hard to defend a race-based preference system used in government, academia and elsewhere for people who aren't even citizens. But a few meaningless replies illustrates this point nicely, fellas.

Where in the world did this come from?

What people were commenting about was your comment using the word "barbarians" because it was frankly quite dumb, it is only you babbling about race-based preference.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

My bad, I thought race-based preference was wrong?

It has its merits and flaws.

As to whether illegal immigrants should be able to take advantage of subsidized education, I'd personally let most of those people get citizenship, so the fact they don't have it now is irrelevant to me.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by subego 

It has its merits and flaws.

Want to elaborate on that point?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Want to elaborate on that point?

I wouldn't mind, but it's a broad subject. Is there something particular you're fishing for?

[BadKosh]

Back on subject.....

Picking and choosing who gets deported for crimes isn't what the law says. Reid & company can protect Owe-bama from impeachment, but it will just be another reminder of why he has to go.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Administration says it will conduct case-by-case review on deportation - CNN.com

Though I think there's some legitimate questions as to whether the executive can ride roughshod over the legislature like this, from a strictly policy perspective it's about frigging time.

Is it bad that the political climate in this country is so toxic it has me thinking that this is either A) A stalling tactic for immigrants since we likely don't have the man power to do this in a timely manner; or B) A way to create more jobs in form of positions to do these reviews?

[Doofy]

So the rule of law no longer applies in the US and A?
What a bright shining example you're setting to the rest of the world, guys. Awesome.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is it bad that the political climate in this country is so toxic it has me thinking that this is either A) A stalling tactic for immigrants since we likely don't have the man power to do this in a timely manner; or B) A way to create more jobs in form of positions to do these reviews?

C: Allow more immigrants in to bolster the votes. Immigrants of this nature always vote for the party which let them in. That's what Blair was doing for a decade.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

C: Allow more immigrants in to bolster the votes. Immigrants of this nature always vote for the party which let them in. That's what Blair was doing for a decade.

You need to be a citizen to vote (not just a permanent resident), and by the time any of these people are eligible to become a citizen the election will be long passed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You need to be a citizen to vote

*waits for the obvious rebuttal of mass election fraud*

[Doofy]

Caught this on the iPad, where I'm not logged in - so managed to glimpse your drivel.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You need to be a citizen to vote (not just a permanent resident), and by the time any of these people are eligible to become a citizen the election will be long passed.

Yes, because the next election is the last election ever in the United States, isn't it?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

*waits for the obvious rebuttal of mass election fraud*

Have fun waiting.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Have fun waiting.

Oh, I don't mean from you specifically. It's vast forum filled with many diverse conspiraci– ...err, personalities.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh, I don't mean from you specifically. It's vast forum filled with many diverse conspiraci– ...err, personalities.

Hmmm... Good point.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Caught this on the iPad, where I'm not logged in - so managed to glimpse your drivel.

I've been noticing that I've been getting more personal attacks from you while on your ignore list, how does this work?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So the rule of law no longer applies in the US and A?
What a bright shining example you're setting to the rest of the world, guys. Awesome.

As I said in the OP, I think there's some legit questions.

On the other hand, the rule of law in this case is unjust. That's not a being a good example either, and one could argue injustice makes a bigger impression on people than not complying with the rule of law.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said in the OP, I think there's some legit questions.

On the other hand, the rule of law in this case is unjust. That's not a good example either, and one could argue injustice makes a bigger impression on people than not complying with the rule of law.

It sounds like its entirely consistent with the law, in the same way that if your boss told you to "clear out all the boxes from the warehouse in 4 hours," but you knew that such a task would actually take 8 hours, you could decide to focus on what you thought were the most important boxes first.

[subego]

Keeping with that analogy, there will be boxes which won't ever get cleared.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've been noticing that I've been getting more personal attacks from you while on your ignore list, how does this work?

First comes love, then comes marriage...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Keeping with that analogy, there will be boxes which won't ever get cleared.

Which isn't any different from the results we were getting previously.

[subego]

I've gotten the impression courts don't tend to buy that argument, legitimate though it may be.

[OAW]

There is really nothing to see here. It is an indisputable fact that the US government does not have the resources to prosecute and deport every illegal immigrant in the country. Consequently, judgements have to be made on which deportation cases to prioritize. The only policy shift here is that the focus will be on criminals and those who pose a national security threat .... as opposed to random illegal residents of the country.

Does this help President Obama politically with the Latino vote? Perhaps. But that still doesn't mean it's not sensible policy.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've gotten the impression courts don't tend to buy that argument, legitimate though it may be.

I'll be the first to admit to not knowing very much about immigration law, but it's my impression that the fact that the government does not prosecute everyone it knows it committing a crime (for reasons varying from, "we don't have time/resources" to "this person is more useful to us out of jail") is a pretty universal thing across all areas of legal system. I don't see why immigration is/should be different.

[subego]

Excellent point.

[Big Mac]

It sends a very negative message about our border and immigration enforcement commitment that will encourage even more people to come here illegally, and it mirrors the Dream Act which was defeated in Congress. That's not cool. The Executive branch should not get to do an end run around Congress and legislate by presidential fiat like that.

[subego]

The practical issues you bring up are a symptom of our irrational immigration policy.

If that doesn't need to be propped-up, these problems solve themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It sends a very negative message about our border and immigration enforcement commitment that will encourage even more people to come here illegally, and it mirrors the Dream Act which was defeated in Congress. That's not cool. The Executive branch should not get to do an end run around Congress and legislate by presidential fiat like that.

... like it is currently doing with action in Libya, for example. I don't think the executive gives a rip about the separation of powers quite frankly. I'm sure there are more than enough"czars" to run the remainder of government according to the design of the executive.

Be done with it already IMO. The fact that there are _______ illegal immigrants in the US is a symptom of a much bigger problem; porous borders. I for one would have zero problem granting amnesty to every last one of them currently in the US if it meant sealing the border to ensure the only future immigrants are those who take the measly three years to do it legally.

[subego]

I believe we've discussed this before.

Isn't demand for citizenship far outweighing supply? I seem to remember there's an arbitrary cap.

WRT sealing the borders, I think if it becomes easier to get citizenship, you can make illegally crossing the border a bigger crime.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I believe we've discussed this before.

Isn't demand for citizenship far outweighing supply? I seem to remember there's an arbitrary cap.

WRT sealing the borders, I think if it becomes easier to get citizenship, you can make illegally crossing the border a bigger crime.

The crime of illegally crossing the borders is plenty big enough IMO, it is enforcement that is lacking due in large part to the fact that the borders are too porous to keep up with the influx.

On what basis do you make the claim that US citizenship is too difficult that it needs to be made easier?

[Doofy]

Why are you guys even talking about citizenship? Shouldn't you be starting with "residency"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The crime of illegally crossing the borders is plenty big enough IMO, it is enforcement that is lacking due in large part to the fact that the borders are too porous to keep up with the influx.

All we do is send you back. That's a slap on the wrist.

Currently, considering the majority of people who are crossing illegally do so with the sole intent of working below minimum wage jobs, I think it would be downright evil to do anything other than a light slap.

OTOH, if these people are accommodated for, then a far stronger case can be made that someone who is crossing illegally intends to do something more nefarious. It's not unreasonable to increase the penalty.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

On what basis do you make the claim that US citizenship is too difficult that it needs to be made easier?

As I said, my understanding is the supply of legal ways into the country is far outstripped by demand.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why are you guys even talking about citizenship? Shouldn't you be starting with "residency"?

Your point of the difference between citizenship and residency is noted. In my original post I mentioned "amnesty" which offers a path to citizenship and may allow residency.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why are you guys even talking about citizenship? Shouldn't you be starting with "residency"?

I'm cutting to the chase.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

All we do is send you back. That's a slap on the wrist.

Currently, considering the majority of people who are crossing illegally with the sole intent of working below minimum wage jobs, I think it would be downright evil to do anything other than a light slap.

Well there's two sides to that issue, the employer needs to incur the full fines assessed in such cases which is $10k per offense if I'm not mistaken. In theory, the illegal immigrant is to serve jail time and be deported from jail to their home country. The problem is, we tell them to appear in court on such and such date for their sentencing and of course, this is "catch and release" and you'll not see them again until they commit another offense that exposes them. I might be for an increase in the penalty for drawing illegals in, sure.

OTOH, if these people are accommodated for, then a far stronger case can be made that someone who is crossing illegally intends to do something more nefarious. It's not unreasonable to increase the penalty.

I'm not for increasing penalties on the immigrant that we're already not enforcing.

As I said, my understanding is the supply of legal ways into the country is far outstripped by demand.

I guess I'm asking you why that matters, that it should be a basis of consideration. If you have a 38% surplus of unskilled labor for example and the overwhelming majority of those attempting to enter the country are unskilled, the US may not be as interested in their citizenship as they are in attaining it. Making it easier to get into the country isn't going to solve the math problem.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well there's two sides to that issue, the employer needs to incur the full fines assessed in such cases which is $10k per offense if I'm not mistaken. In theory, the illegal immigrant is to serve jail time and be deported from jail to their home country. The problem is, we tell them to appear in court on such and such date for their sentencing and of course, this is "catch and release" and you'll not see them again until they commit another offense that exposes them. I might be for an increase in the penalty for drawing illegals in, sure.

As I said. Current policy is a slap on the wrist.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not for increasing penalties on the immigrant that we're already not enforcing.

I'm not either. Which is why I stated accommodating the people looking for legit work was a necessary step to this policy change. This would free up all kinds of resources which are currently being wasted (IMO). Likewise, I think there would be more willingness to fund border patrol operations as the reasons to be sympathetic towards illegal crossings disappear.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I guess I'm asking you why that matters, that it should be a basis of consideration. If you have a 38% surplus of unskilled labor for example and the overwhelming majority of those attempting to enter the country are unskilled, the US may not be as interested in their citizenship as they are in attaining it. Making it easier to get into the country isn't going to solve the math problem.

Is that our current unskilled labor surplus?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is that our current unskilled labor surplus?

I recall the actual figure broken out more simply in a different article, but I'm not finding it. I did find a more detailed article that quantifies the surplus of unskilled labor in the US, related studies, and conclusions on the impact of illegal immigration on the US labor market here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said. Current policy is a slap on the wrist.

I don't think prison time/deportation is a slap on the wrist. The policy is not a slap on the wrist, the enforcement often turns out to be, but that is because of the number of those subject to the punitive measure.

I'm not either. Which is why I stated accommodating the people looking for legit work was a necessary step to this policy change. This would free up all kinds of resources which are currently being wasted (IMO). Likewise, I think there would be more willingness to fund border patrol operations as the reasons to be sympathetic towards illegal crossings disappear.

We have more than enough laborers in the US to accommodate the legitimate work that needs to be done. The problem is, Americans don't want to work these jobs for $6.00/hr. Note - they'll work the jobs and often do side-by-side legal immigrants, but not for $6.00/hr. I think it's time we make life a little easier on the native labor force, not easier on those seeking another country's labor market.

[subego]

I'll look over the report. I prefer more detailed.

In the meantime, are you suggesting we raise the minimum wage?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll look over the report. I prefer more detailed.

In the meantime, are you suggesting we raise the minimum wage?

No. More evidence that there is no real shortage of unskilled labor as they are the ones who lose their jobs when the minimum wage is raised. Most legal laborers do not stay at minimum wage long. Those that are getting paid illegally don't really have the leverage for raises. $6.00/hr might be generous, it's hard to know for sure.

[finboy]

This is just more evidence confirming that the conspiracy theorists aren't nuts. I think we'll find all kinds of things done by fiat over the next year, but we may not find them until the kooks point them out.