Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[Rich Conway]

Well I tried anyhow. The article was filled with stats and studies and stated very plainly that illegals will never take out more from the system than they pay in. It seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude that the 100 billion paid into Social Security by itself alone pays for all the costs of illegals and then some , even in California, even if we accept Sand's 10 billion a year figure (which I'm highly skeptical about). But I know I'm never gonna convince most people that the benefits far outweigh the costs. It's true though and always has been.

Your CNN article pretty clearly misinterpreted (or misrepresented) the data from the Heritage study. That study showed that each illegal household is a net cost of $14K.

Or, in other words, once we analyzed the link you provided, it shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

 

[humpback]

Well I tried anyhow. The article was filled with stats and studies and stated very plainly that illegals will never take out more from the system than they pay in. It seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude that the 100 billion paid into Social Security by itself alone pays for all the costs of illegals and then some , even in California, even if we accept Sand's 10 billion a year figure (which I'm highly skeptical about). But I know I'm never gonna convince most people that the benefits far outweigh the costs. It's true though and always has been.

Your CNN article pretty clearly misinterpreted (or misrepresented) the data from the Heritage study. That study showed that each illegal household is a net cost of $14K.

Yeah, I expected a "I was wrong about that, but it wasn't really the point..." from him. That he didn't even mention it leads me to believe he couldn't care less about actual facts, it's all emotion with him.

 

[timschochet]

It IS false according to what Fatness posted, because it was NOT unanticipated. Congreve knew fully what it was doing.

 

[snowmonkey501]

all this begs the question, If this is such a dire situation why didn't Obama do this during the first term?

the unaccompanied chidren crossing the border is a direct result of his lack of enforcement and prosecutorial 'discretion'

 

[timschochet]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

 

[snowmonkey501]

It IS false according to what Fatness posted, because it was NOT unanticipated. Congreve knew fully what it was doing.

facts. they elude you.

 

[timschochet]

It IS false according to what Fatness posted, because it was NOT unanticipated. Congreve knew fully what it was doing.

facts. they elude you.

Apparently not in this case.

 

[HellToupee]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

please get on this matter , pronto

 

[Sand]

Well I tried anyhow. The article was filled with stats and studies and stated very plainly that illegals will never take out more from the system than they pay in. It seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude that the 100 billion paid into Social Security by itself alone pays for all the costs of illegals and then some , even in California, even if we accept Sand's 10 billion a year figure (which I'm highly skeptical about). But I know I'm never gonna convince most people that the benefits far outweigh the costs. It's true though and always has been.

Illegals are generally a pretty big net negative for states and a net positive for the Feds. So you're statement about SS and mine about California don't really contradict each other.

 

[humpback]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

It wasn't the CNN article which misrepresented things, it was you.

 

[Loan Sharks]

That's all well and good, but even if we take those statistics and studies at face value, it doesn't show that illegal immigration is a net benefit. It doesn't show that it's a net benefit at the current level, or if there were more (or less).

Don't take it at face value. The article itself flat out states that they ARE a drain on the system NOW , BUT it may be better later when they start paying taxes. Tim's whole assumption is that while eating 14K per household now is no big deal because when all these illegal kids grow up they will be awesome at paying taxes on all the jobs they have.

"Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers."

I bet Tim doesn't know when this tax windfall from all the illegal tax money, (that they are allegedly already paying) is going to come and how many years it is going to take to reach a point that it surpasses the deficit that is and has been running. So what 20 years till these kids start paying taxes and another 20 to wipe out the back log of losses.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Loan Sharks]

Well I tried anyhow. The article was filled with stats and studies and stated very plainly that illegals will never take out more from the system than they pay in. It seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude that the 100 billion paid into Social Security by itself alone pays for all the costs of illegals and then some , even in California, even if we accept Sand's 10 billion a year figure (which I'm highly skeptical about). But I know I'm never gonna convince most people that the benefits far outweigh the costs. It's true though and always has been.

Your CNN article pretty clearly misinterpreted (or misrepresented) the data from the Heritage study. That study showed that each illegal household is a net cost of $14K.

Or, in other words, once we analyzed the link you provided, it shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Sorry, pretty much just repeated you so this.

 

[Rich Conway]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

It wasn't the CNN article which misrepresented things, it was you.

The CNN article did a pretty poor job of clearly restating what the Heritage study found. I don't put that on timschochet. Whether the CNN author misinterpreted or misrepresented the study is unclear.

The CNN article basically said "illegals pay all these taxes, and contribute lots to the economy". Then it said "illegals also use some services, so they cost $14K per household". The implication is that we then have to compare the contributions from the first statement versus the costs from the second to determine whether there is a net benefit. However, what they didn't make clear at all was the $14K cost was a "net cost" that already included the contributions from the first statement.

 

[Apple Jack]

King Obama's Uncostitutionalism in context

 

[timschochet]

No I did not misread the article. Yes the article clearly stated that illegals are a net benefit NOW, and not in the future. Sand is correct, however, to draw a distinction between states and the federal government. I have always acknowledged the possibility that illegals may be a drain on the border states, yet still benefiting the country as a whole. The obvious solution is not to get read of the illegals but for the rest of the country to help share the extra burdens that the border states face. I acknowledge that this idea will never be popular.

 

[HellToupee]

Tim needs his own dedicated section/ffa where he can really let loose

 

[humpback]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

It wasn't the CNN article which misrepresented things, it was you.

The CNN article did a pretty poor job of clearly restating what the Heritage study found. I don't put that on timschochet. Whether the CNN author misinterpreted or misrepresented the study is unclear.

The CNN article basically said "illegals pay all these taxes, and contribute lots to the economy". Then it said "illegals also use some services, so they cost $14K per household". The implication is that we then have to compare the contributions from the first statement versus the costs from the second to determine whether there is a net benefit. However, what they didn't make clear at all was the $14K cost was a "net cost" that already included the contributions from the first statement.

Here is the standalone paragraph:

Citizen children of illegal immigrants -- often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" -- do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers.

Seems pretty clear to me that they are saying they are a net drain now, but view it as an "investment" for the future, no?

 

[humpback]

No I did not misread the article. Yes the article clearly stated that illegals are a net benefit NOW, and not in the future. Sand is correct, however, to draw a distinction between states and the federal government. I have always acknowledged the possibility that illegals may be a drain on the border states, yet still benefiting the country as a whole. The obvious solution is not to get read of the illegals but for the rest of the country to help share the extra burdens that the border states face. I acknowledge that this idea will never be popular.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Tim needs his own dedicated section/ffa where he can really let loose

Well we put Zippy in a cage, maybe we should create the playpen for Tim.

 

[timschochet]

I also want to add for the sake of clarity: just as Walking Boot stated that even if he were convinced that illegals were a net benefit he still couldn't get past their illegality, I need to state that for me even if I were convinced that illegals were a net drain I would still be for them coming here. To me it goes much much deeper than economics; it's a question of what this nation is all about. The so called crime of crossing the border without papers is IMO not really a crime at all given the nature of the United States and how we are different and better than any other country on Earth. These illegals have just as much right to be here as me, as all of you, as anyone living in the world. To be an American means to welcome everyone in. The economics are secondary.

 

[Jim11]

King Obama's Uncostitutionalism in context

There's quantity and then there's quality. Also, there's legal and there's illegal.

 

[Rich Conway]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

It wasn't the CNN article which misrepresented things, it was you.

The CNN article did a pretty poor job of clearly restating what the Heritage study found. I don't put that on timschochet. Whether the CNN author misinterpreted or misrepresented the study is unclear.

The CNN article basically said "illegals pay all these taxes, and contribute lots to the economy". Then it said "illegals also use some services, so they cost $14K per household". The implication is that we then have to compare the contributions from the first statement versus the costs from the second to determine whether there is a net benefit. However, what they didn't make clear at all was the $14K cost was a "net cost" that already included the contributions from the first statement.

Here is the standalone paragraph:

Citizen children of illegal immigrants -- often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" -- do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers.

Seems pretty clear to me that they are saying they are a net drain now, but view it as an "investment" for the future, no?

Maybe. When I read it the first time, in context of the entire article, I also took it to mean that the $14K number is the outflow to be compared to the inflows mentioned in Myths #1 and #2. Considering that the subtitle of that item states that "they drain the system" is a myth, I can't fault timschochet (or anyone else) for reading it the same way.

Like I said, I can't tell whether the author of the CNN article misinterpreted the Heritage study, misrepresented it (by intentionally implying that the $14K should be compared against the prior mentioned benefits, rather than being the total, net cost), or just writes so poorly that you can't tell what he/she was trying to say. In any case, I blame the CNN article's author for not making it clear.

 

[Sand]

King Obama's Uncostitutionalism in context

Interesting how modern presidents differ from the older ones. Other than that this has no bearing at all on what O actually did.

 

[Apple Jack]

These people are illegal and that their very presence is an attack on the integrity of our laws.

If they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

So ridiculous.

 

[urbanhack]

I also want to add for the sake of clarity: just as Walking Boot stated that even if he were convinced that illegals were a net benefit he still couldn't get past their illegality, I need to state that for me even if I were convinced that illegals were a net drain I would still be for them coming here. To me it goes much much deeper than economics; it's a question of what this nation is all about. The so called crime of crossing the border without papers is IMO not really a crime at all given the nature of the United States and how we are different and better than any other country on Earth. These illegals have just as much right to be here as me, as all of you, as anyone living in the world. To be an American means to welcome everyone in. The economics are secondary.

These people are illegal and that their very presence is an attack on the integrity of our laws.

 

[Rich Conway]

I also want to add for the sake of clarity: just as Walking Boot stated that even if he were convinced that illegals were a net benefit he still couldn't get past their illegality, I need to state that for me even if I were convinced that illegals were a net drain I would still be for them coming here. To me it goes much much deeper than economics; it's a question of what this nation is all about. The so called crime of crossing the border without papers is IMO not really a crime at all given the nature of the United States and how we are different and better than any other country on Earth. These illegals have just as much right to be here as me, as all of you, as anyone living in the world. To be an American means to welcome everyone in. The economics are secondary.

These people are illegal and that their very presence is an attack on the integrity of our laws.

If they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal.

We challenge timschochet to provide proof every time he claims illegal immigration is a net benefit. Seems only fair to do the same here. Link?

 

[snowmonkey501]

No I did not misread the article. Yes the article clearly stated that illegals are a net benefit NOW, and not in the future. Sand is correct, however, to draw a distinction between states and the federal government. I have always acknowledged the possibility that illegals may be a drain on the border states, yet still benefiting the country as a whole. The obvious solution is not to get read of the illegals but for the rest of the country to help share the extra burdens that the border states face. I acknowledge that this idea will never be popular.

ah the old "cant put a price on those intangible benefits"

don't go away mad. just go away.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Oh Tim....

 

[lakerstan]

The Republicans are so enraged by this abuse on illegal immigration that they sue him today..........for changes to healthcare.

Kinda like when they were enraged after 9/11 at Al Qaeda, so they attacked.........Iraq.

 

[humpback]

If the CNN article misrepresented the Heritage star then that's important and needs to be weighed. When I get to a computer I'll look at that more closely.

It wasn't the CNN article which misrepresented things, it was you.

The CNN article did a pretty poor job of clearly restating what the Heritage study found. I don't put that on timschochet. Whether the CNN author misinterpreted or misrepresented the study is unclear.

The CNN article basically said "illegals pay all these taxes, and contribute lots to the economy". Then it said "illegals also use some services, so they cost $14K per household". The implication is that we then have to compare the contributions from the first statement versus the costs from the second to determine whether there is a net benefit. However, what they didn't make clear at all was the $14K cost was a "net cost" that already included the contributions from the first statement.

Here is the standalone paragraph:

Citizen children of illegal immigrants -- often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" -- do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers.

Seems pretty clear to me that they are saying they are a net drain now, but view it as an "investment" for the future, no?

Maybe. When I read it the first time, in context of the entire article, I also took it to mean that the $14K number is the outflow to be compared to the inflows mentioned in Myths #1 and #2. Considering that the subtitle of that item states that "they drain the system" is a myth, I can't fault timschochet (or anyone else) for reading it the same way.

Like I said, I can't tell whether the author of the CNN article misinterpreted the Heritage study, misrepresented it (by intentionally implying that the $14K should be compared against the prior mentioned benefits, rather than being the total, net cost), or just writes so poorly that you can't tell what he/she was trying to say. In any case, I blame the CNN article's author for not making it clear.

The "article" is awful, and the writer is clearly as slanted as Tim is on the subject, although I think that particular section was pretty obvious- I don't think they would call it an "investment for the future" if they believed it was a net positive today. Either way, all you have to do is check the Heritage report they referenced to find out, although I suppose it's moot now that Tim says the economics aren't that important anymore.

 

[Rich Conway]

Maybe. When I read it the first time, in context of the entire article, I also took it to mean that the $14K number is the outflow to be compared to the inflows mentioned in Myths #1 and #2. Considering that the subtitle of that item states that "they drain the system" is a myth, I can't fault timschochet (or anyone else) for reading it the same way.

Like I said, I can't tell whether the author of the CNN article misinterpreted the Heritage study, misrepresented it (by intentionally implying that the $14K should be compared against the prior mentioned benefits, rather than being the total, net cost), or just writes so poorly that you can't tell what he/she was trying to say. In any case, I blame the CNN article's author for not making it clear.

The "article" is awful, and the writer is clearly as slanted as Tim is on the subject, although I think that particular section was pretty obvious- I don't think they would call it an "investment for the future" if they believed it was a net positive today. Either way, all you have to do is check the Heritage report they referenced to find out, although I suppose it's moot now that Tim says the economics aren't that important anymore.

So we'll just go with the option 3, the CNN author just writes so poorly that you can't tell what he/she was trying to say?

But yeah, as soon as I looked up the Heritage study, it became clear.

 

[Rich Conway]

What's really a shame is that it wouldn't be that hard to create an actual solution that makes almost everyone happy. If the GOP was smart, they'd wait until February, then pass a bill that approximates the compromise solution I've posted here before. It would be really easy to spin that as both a crackdown on illegal immigration AND a guarantee of legal status.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If the GOP was smart not completely beholden to its most radical members, it would etc etc

 

[meatwad1]

The Republicans are so enraged by this abuse on illegal immigration that they sue him today..........for changes to healthcare.

Kinda like when they were enraged after 9/11 at Al Qaeda, so they attacked.........Iraq.

Care to post the roll call on who voted to attack Iraq? I'll save you the trouble, it was pretty much unanimous.

 

[jamny]

lmao. Just heard Cavuto make a good point. How will you know if they have been here for 5 years? Maybe it's only been 2 or 3. Maybe they just got here last week.

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

 

[tommyboy]

The Republicans are so enraged by this abuse on illegal immigration that they sue him today..........for changes to healthcare.

Kinda like when they were enraged after 9/11 at Al Qaeda, so they attacked.........Iraq.

don't know who you are, don't know much about you but judging from this one post I get the impression you think you're clever.

why would the republicans sue Obama for what he did yesterday?

who voted to attack Iraq after 9/11?

I await your enthralling answers

 

[tommyboy]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

 

[timschochet]

lmao. Just heard Cavuto make a good point. How will you know if they have been here for 5 years? Maybe it's only been 2 or 3. Maybe they just got here last week.

He's uninformed. Just as with Obama's action on the Dreamers, those eligible for this have to go to ICE and prove that they've been here for 5 years by showing tax records, other documents etc. In addition, they have to pay a fine of $465.00 for the infraction of entering this country illegally. (Or, in the case of those who who overstayed their visas, which represents perhaps half of all illegal immigrants, the infraction of staying here beyond the allotted time.)

It's estimated that less than half of those whom this action applies to will actually submit themselves to the ICE and pay the fee. So we're really talking about 2-2.5 million people.

 

[jamny]

lmao. Just heard Cavuto make a good point. How will you know if they have been here for 5 years? Maybe it's only been 2 or 3. Maybe they just got here last week.

He's uninformed. Just as with Obama's action on the Dreamers, those eligible for this have to go to ICE and prove that they've been here for 5 years by showing tax records, other documents etc. In addition, they have to pay a fine of $465.00 for the infraction of entering this country illegally. (Or, in the case of those who who overstayed their visas, which represents perhaps half of all illegal immigrants, the infraction of staying here beyond the allotted time.)

It's estimated that less than half of those whom this action applies to will actually submit themselves to the ICE and pay the fee. So we're really talking about 2-2.5 million people.

So there is absolutely no way for someone who has been here for 5 years but can only show proof for the last 4 to get in on this?

You believe that?

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

I just did. Here's the link that Fatness posted the other day:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141118/NEWS03/141119411/1006/news

1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

— 1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

— 1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

So as I wrote earlier, this was NOT an "unintended consequence." Reagan wanted the spouses and children to qualify, he tried to get it passed through Congress, and the House refused to do it. It was not accidental; THEY REFUSED TO DO IT. Reagan then did it on his own. The facts are VERY clear. He set the precedent. All of the right wing arguments you are relying on for this point have it wrong.

 

[timschochet]

lmao. Just heard Cavuto make a good point. How will you know if they have been here for 5 years? Maybe it's only been 2 or 3. Maybe they just got here last week.

He's uninformed. Just as with Obama's action on the Dreamers, those eligible for this have to go to ICE and prove that they've been here for 5 years by showing tax records, other documents etc. In addition, they have to pay a fine of $465.00 for the infraction of entering this country illegally. (Or, in the case of those who who overstayed their visas, which represents perhaps half of all illegal immigrants, the infraction of staying here beyond the allotted time.)

It's estimated that less than half of those whom this action applies to will actually submit themselves to the ICE and pay the fee. So we're really talking about 2-2.5 million people.

So there is absolutely no way for someone who has been here for 5 years but can only show proof for the last 4 to get in on this?

You believe that?

Well that's what the order says, according to some experts I've been listening to on the radio. Of course there is sure to be fraud. But I predict that, just as with Obama's DREAM action, this will likely end up affecting far LESS people than it's intended to. Unfortunately.

 

[tommyboy]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

I just did. Here's the link that Fatness posted the other day:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141118/NEWS03/141119411/1006/news

1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

— 1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

— 1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

So as I wrote earlier, this was NOT an "unintended consequence." Reagan wanted the spouses and children to qualify, he tried to get it passed through Congress, and the House refused to do it. It was not accidental; THEY REFUSED TO DO IT. Reagan then did it on his own. The facts are VERY clear. He set the precedent. All of the right wing arguments you are relying on for this point have it wrong.

right, the fact is staring you in the face .

Congess acted in 1986, Reagan fixed the loophole shortly after.

ETA: in the case yesterday, congress has not acted at all, Obama just decided on his own to act

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

I just did. Here's the link that Fatness posted the other day:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141118/NEWS03/141119411/1006/news

1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

— 1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

— 1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

So as I wrote earlier, this was NOT an "unintended consequence." Reagan wanted the spouses and children to qualify, he tried to get it passed through Congress, and the House refused to do it. It was not accidental; THEY REFUSED TO DO IT. Reagan then did it on his own. The facts are VERY clear. He set the precedent. All of the right wing arguments you are relying on for this point have it wrong.

right, the fact is staring you in the face .

Congess acted in 1986, Reagan fixed the loophole shortly after.

ETA: in the case yesterday, congress has not acted at all, Obama just decided on his own to act

You're missing the point. You stated earlier that Reagan was acting as a result of an unintended consequence, that he was only correcting what Congress intended in the first place. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Congress did not want the amnesty extended to spouses and children. IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENTAL LOOPHOLE, BUT AN INTENDED PART OF THE LAW. They had 3 chances to make the change themselves and refused to do so. Reagan then took sole action because Congress would not.

While I agree it's not exactly the same it's close enough, and Reagan is the one who set the precedent. You and many other conservatives have implied that Reagan acted with the consent of Congress, and as a correction of an accident or unintended consequence. But again that is false- Reagan went AGAINST the will of Congress, and that, for all practical purposes, is what Obama did as well.

 

[Sammy3469]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

I just did. Here's the link that Fatness posted the other day:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141118/NEWS03/141119411/1006/news

1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

— 1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

— 1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

So as I wrote earlier, this was NOT an "unintended consequence." Reagan wanted the spouses and children to qualify, he tried to get it passed through Congress, and the House refused to do it. It was not accidental; THEY REFUSED TO DO IT. Reagan then did it on his own. The facts are VERY clear. He set the precedent. All of the right wing arguments you are relying on for this point have it wrong.

right, the fact is staring you in the face .

Congess acted in 1986, Reagan fixed the loophole shortly after.

ETA: in the case yesterday, congress has not acted at all, Obama just decided on his own to act

Gotta love conservatives...everything is black and white until it goes against them.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Is close enough now a legal precedent?

 

[timschochet]

Is close enough now a legal precedent?

In this case yes of course.

 

[HellToupee]

The Republicans are so enraged by this abuse on illegal immigration that they sue him today..........for changes to healthcare.

Kinda like when they were enraged after 9/11 at Al Qaeda, so they attacked.........Iraq.

today's bright light

 

[tommyboy]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

I just did. Here's the link that Fatness posted the other day:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141118/NEWS03/141119411/1006/news

1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

— 1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

— 1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

So as I wrote earlier, this was NOT an "unintended consequence." Reagan wanted the spouses and children to qualify, he tried to get it passed through Congress, and the House refused to do it. It was not accidental; THEY REFUSED TO DO IT. Reagan then did it on his own. The facts are VERY clear. He set the precedent. All of the right wing arguments you are relying on for this point have it wrong.

right, the fact is staring you in the face .

Congess acted in 1986, Reagan fixed the loophole shortly after.

ETA: in the case yesterday, congress has not acted at all, Obama just decided on his own to act

You're missing the point. You stated earlier that Reagan was acting as a result of an unintended consequence, that he was only correcting what Congress intended in the first place. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Congress did not want the amnesty extended to spouses and children. IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENTAL LOOPHOLE, BUT AN INTENDED PART OF THE LAW. They had 3 chances to make the change themselves and refused to do so. Reagan then took sole action because Congress would not.

While I agree it's not exactly the same it's close enough, and Reagan is the one who set the precedent. You and many other conservatives have implied that Reagan acted with the consent of Congress, and as a correction of an accident or unintended consequence. But again that is false- Reagan went AGAINST the will of Congress, and that, for all practical purposes, is what Obama did as well.

no, they had one chance. They passed the law, it created a problem, they didn't fix it so Reagan did. This isn't very complicated dude, not sure why you can't figure it out.

in the case of Obama, congress hasn't passed a law recently that I can tell,

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, I want to compliment you.

As you might have guessed, I disagree pretty strongly with about 99.99% of your arguments regarding illegal immigration. However, you state them well, and intelligently, which I appreciate.

You might want to work a little bit on your World War II history, however. The US responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on us.

similarly, you need to revisit the history of Reagans action on immigration.

I just did. Here's the link that Fatness posted the other day:http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141118/NEWS03/141119411/1006/news



1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.



So as I wrote earlier, this was NOT an "unintended consequence." Reagan wanted the spouses and children to qualify, he tried to get it passed through Congress, and the House refused to do it. It was not accidental; THEY REFUSED TO DO IT. Reagan then did it on his own. The facts are VERY clear. He set the precedent. All of the right wing arguments you are relying on for this point have it wrong.

right, the fact is staring you in the face .

Congess acted in 1986, Reagan fixed the loophole shortly after.

ETA: in the case yesterday, congress has not acted at all, Obama just decided on his own to act

You're missing the point. You stated earlier that Reagan was acting as a result of an unintended consequence, that he was only correcting what Congress intended in the first place. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Congress did not want the amnesty extended to spouses and children. IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENTAL LOOPHOLE, BUT AN INTENDED PART OF THE LAW. They had 3 chances to make the change themselves and refused to do so. Reagan then took sole action because Congress would not.While I agree it's not exactly the same it's close enough, and Reagan is the one who set the precedent. You and many other conservatives have implied that Reagan acted with the consent of Congress, and as a correction of an accident or unintended consequence. But again that is false- Reagan went AGAINST the will of Congress, and that, for all practical purposes, is what Obama did as well.

no, they had one chance. They passed the law, it created a problem, they didn't fix it so Reagan did. This isn't very complicated dude, not sure why you can't figure it out.

in the case of Obama, congress hasn't passed a law recently that I can tell,

OK. I've tried . You're a pretty smart guy so all I can figure is that you're being deliberately obtuse.