Obama is not serious about immigration reform (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Thanks Fatness. It still appears that in Reagan's case, Jamny is correct that he was cleaning up a law already enacted. The Bush case seems much more analogous to what Obama may do.

Still, to be fair to the conservative position, illegal immigration was not the issue 25 years ago that it is today. I suspect that if Bush Sr. were President right now and tried to do the same thing, the reaction among conservatives might be just as antagonistic .

 

[fatness]

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

Right but the point is that in that case there was already a law in place . Here there isn't.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Ted Cruz's statement in anticipation of Obama's immigration speech scheduled for tomorrow night at 8:00 PM.

Obama Is Not a Monarch

The president cannot act alone; the Constitution requires compromise.

By SEN. TED CRUZ, November 19, 2014
The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for illegal immigrants unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law.


Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the President threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.

To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American People. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the President’s executive amnesty.


President Obama was correct: His policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014. The elections were a referendum on amnesty, and the voters soundly rejected it. There was no ambiguity.

Undeterred, President Obama appears to be going forward. It is lawless. It is unconstitutional. He is defiant and angry at the American people. If he acts by executive diktat, President Obama will not be acting as a president, he will be acting as a monarch.

Thankfully, the framers of our Constitution, wary of the dangers of monarchy, gave the Congress tools to rein in abuses of power. They believed if the President wants to change the law, he cannot act alone; he must work with Congress.

He may not get everything he wants, but the Constitution requires compromise between the branches.

A monarch, however, does not compromise. As Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist 69, a monarch decrees, dictates, and rules through fiat power, which is what President Obama is attempting.

When the President embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power it has to stop it.

Congress, representing the voice of the People, should use every tool available to prevent the President from subverting the rule of law.

When the President usurps the legislative power and defies the limits of his authority, it becomes all the more imperative for Congress to act. And Congress should use those powers given to it by the Constitution to counter a lawless executive branch—or it will lose its authority.

If the President announces executive amnesty, the new Senate Majority Leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee—executive or judicial—outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists.

This is a potent tool given to Congress by the Constitution explicitly to act as a check on executive power. It is a constitutional power of the Majority Leader alone, and it would serve as a significant deterrent to a lawless President.

Additionally, the new Congress should exercise the power of the purse by passing individual appropriations bills authorizing critical functions of government and attaching riders to strip the authority from the president to grant amnesty.

President Obama will no doubt threaten a shutdown—that seems to be the one card he repeatedly plays—but Congress can authorize funding for agencies of government one at a time. If the President is unwilling to accepting funding for, say, the Department of Homeland Security without his being able to unilaterally defy the law, he alone will be responsible for the consequences.

A presidential temper tantrum is not an acceptable means of discourse.

Of course, these confrontations are not desirable, and it is unbecoming for an American president to show such condescension towards the voters.

The American people, however, are not powerless. They have elected a new Congress full of members who have promised in their campaigns to stand up to this lawless President and stop the amnesty. We must honor our commitments.

If the President will not respect the people, Congress must.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/president-obama-is-not-a-monarch-113028.html#ixzz3JXvG9KiU

 

[timschochet]

Ridiculous, absurd, over the top statement. Where to begin?

1. The vote on November 4 was NOT a referendum on illegal immigration. That was one of many issues which concerned voters, along with Obamacare, and, primarily, the overall state of the economy.

2. Unless President Obama really surprises me, he will NOT be proposing amnesty tomorrow night (unfortunately.) What he will be proposing is deferring the threat of deportation for illegals with children who are legal.

3. I don't believe that, given the examples mentioned here, particularly by George Bush in 1990, that Obama's action will be unlawful or unConstitutional.

4. If Congress threatens to pass individual appropriations bills (which I doubt) it would not be the President threatening shutdown, it would be the Congress. No President, Republican or Democrat, will ever allow Congress to attempt to do this as it weakens the Presidency immeasurably. The particular issues at play are irrelevant.

McConnell's too smart not to know all this; he also knows that in the event of a government shutdown over this issue, the public (minus the conservative base) will blame Congress, just as they did before. Cruz has thrown a time bomb here, not at the President, but at the Republican establishment.

 

[whoknew]

2. Unless President Obama really surprises me, he will NOT be proposing amnesty tomorrow night (unfortunately.) What he will be proposing is deferring the threat of deportation for illegals with children who are legal.

Sorry if this has been covered already, but how will this work, in practice? Will it not encourage current undocumented people to have children? Seems like an unintended consequence.

 

[Courtjester]

4. If Congress threatens to pass individual appropriations bills (which I doubt) it would not be the President threatening shutdown, it would be the Congress. No President, Republican or Democrat, will ever allow Congress to attempt to do this as it weakens the Presidency immeasurably. The particular issues at play are irrelevant.

This makes absolutely zero sense there Tim. Do you honestly believe the public is going to blame the Republicans if they bring up individual appropriation bills that fund the government and provide paychecks and services to people, but that just does not fund his immigration plan so then the President vetos it--that they will still blame the Republicans?

I know that is what you HOPE happens, but this president is extremely unpopular. If he pulls out a veto just to support what HE wants and that ultimately shuts down the government, the fault will be with him.

I think you are letting your very well know opinion on immigration cloud your common sense here. Keep in mind, this issue isn't exactly one that a vast majority of people in this country support and will again put current Democrat Senators and even potential Democrat presidential candidates on hot seats to either be with this president or against him. If they say they are with him, they will take the backlash at the polls. If they say they are against him they will lose any support that have from the Hispanic population.

 

[timschochet]

CJ this has nothing to do with my views on illegal immigration. For the record my views are highly unpopular and always will be. I get that .

But shutting down the government is a different matter. If the President wants one appropriations bill, and Congress wants a whole bunch of them so that they can remove funding for Obama's executive orders, and the result of this disagreement is a shutdown, the public will blame Congress.

Worse- as the Civil Rights Act did for blacks, any retaliation by the GOP here, any resistance to this plan, will solidify Latino support for decades to come. This is their moment, right now. How the GOP reacts to Obama's speech tomorrow night will determine it's future as a national party.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ted Cruz's statement in anticipation of Obama's immigration speech scheduled for tomorrow night at 8:00 PM.

Obama Is Not a Monarch

...

Cruz is Cuban-Canadian-American, but somehow.... he's not. The GOP elects an Hispanic statewide in Texas and it's like he's not even Hispanic.

Where the hell is Rubio? The GOP reminds me of a bad football team sometimes, a talented team with a deep bench running Trent Richardson up the center's butt for 2.2 ypc.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I can't believe Republicans are going to take the bait on this immigration fight. Absolute dream scenario for Democrats having Ted Cruz and other loud mouth ignorant bigots spouting their nonsense - just shores up the most important demographic in politics today for the Democrats for decades to come.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe Republicans are going to take the bait on this immigration fight. Absolute dream scenario for Democrats having Ted Cruz and other loud mouth ignorant bigots spouting their nonsense - just shores up the most important demographic in politics today for the Democrats for decades to come.

yep. This is playing right into Dems hands.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Worse- as the Civil Rights Act did for blacks, any retaliation by the GOP here, any resistance to this plan, will solidify Latino support for decades to come.

There was no strong GOP resistance or retaliation to the the Civil Rights act when it was passed. In fact, the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers thatn the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. The sheer fact that a Democrat President championed and signed off on the Civil Rights Act was enough to gain black support for the Democrat Party regardless of whether the GOP agreed with or resisted that act. The same may be true for Latinos forming an even stronger Democrat allegiance depending on what Obama proposes, and that Latino-Democrat allegiance may not be dented even if the GOP agreed with Obama's plan. Most Americans remember the President who signed major legislation and not the Congress who pushed it through.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Worse- as the Civil Rights Act did for blacks, any retaliation by the GOP here, any resistance to this plan, will solidify Latino support for decades to come.

There was no strong GOP resistance or retaliation to the the Civil Rights act when it was passed. In fact, the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers thatn the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. The sheer fact that a Democrat President championed and signed off on the Civil Rights Act was enough to gain black support for the Democrat Party regardless of whether the GOP agreed with or resisted that act. The same may be true for Latinos forming an even stronger Democrat allegiance depending on what Obama proposes, and that Latino-Democrat allegiance may not be dented even if the GOP agreed with Obama's plan. Most Americans remember the President who signed major legislation and not the Congress who pushed it through.

Funny because LBJ himself voted against two prior CRA's.

Eisenhower integrated schools etc. in the 50s.

I think people need to look at the polling on immigration and amnesty. It doesn't say what Democrats would like, even among Democrats, even among Hispanics, and Cubans in Florida don't feel the same the way that Hondurans in New Orleans or Mexicans in California do.

The shutdown issue is different and stands alone. The GOP shouldn't do that, people don't like it. Someone needs to figure out a way to pass important legislation in this country. If a GOP Congress, who would need substantial Democratic support btw, passed their own immigration legislation it would override whatever the president does, heck he could even sign it if they did it right.

 

[timschochet]

Worse- as the Civil Rights Act did for blacks, any retaliation by the GOP here, any resistance to this plan, will solidify Latino support for decades to come.

There was no strong GOP resistance or retaliation to the the Civil Rights act when it was passed. In fact, the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers thatn the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. The sheer fact that a Democrat President championed and signed off on the Civil Rights Act was enough to gain black support for the Democrat Party regardless of whether the GOP agreed with or resisted that act. The same may be true for Latinos forming an even stronger Democrat allegiance depending on what Obama proposes, and that Latino-Democrat allegiance may not be dented even if the GOP agreed with Obama's plan. Most Americans remember the President who signed major legislation and not the Congress who pushed it through.

The moat visible Republican at the time, Barry Goldwater, opposed the Civil Rights Act. That's what blacks remembered.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Worse- as the Civil Rights Act did for blacks, any retaliation by the GOP here, any resistance to this plan, will solidify Latino support for decades to come.

There was no strong GOP resistance or retaliation to the the Civil Rights act when it was passed. In fact, the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers thatn the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. The sheer fact that a Democrat President championed and signed off on the Civil Rights Act was enough to gain black support for the Democrat Party regardless of whether the GOP agreed with or resisted that act. The same may be true for Latinos forming an even stronger Democrat allegiance depending on what Obama proposes, and that Latino-Democrat allegiance may not be dented even if the GOP agreed with Obama's plan. Most Americans remember the President who signed major legislation and not the Congress who pushed it through.

The moat visible Republican at the time, Barry Goldwater, opposed the Civil Rights Act. That's what blacks remembered.

That's fair, and I was thinking of Goldwater as I typed that. A figurehead draws more attention even if the rest of "his team" takes a differing approach.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Worse- as the Civil Rights Act did for blacks, any retaliation by the GOP here, any resistance to this plan, will solidify Latino support for decades to come.

There was no strong GOP resistance or retaliation to the the Civil Rights act when it was passed. In fact, the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers thatn the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. The sheer fact that a Democrat President championed and signed off on the Civil Rights Act was enough to gain black support for the Democrat Party regardless of whether the GOP agreed with or resisted that act. The same may be true for Latinos forming an even stronger Democrat allegiance depending on what Obama proposes, and that Latino-Democrat allegiance may not be dented even if the GOP agreed with Obama's plan. Most Americans remember the President who signed major legislation and not the Congress who pushed it through.

The moat visible Republican at the time, Barry Goldwater, opposed the Civil Rights Act. That's what blacks remembered.

Goldwater integrated schools in Arizona, he was a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.

In the 1964 civil rights act Republicans in the house voted 138 for and 34 against; Democrats voted 152 for and 96 against. In the Senate, the Republicans voted 27 for and 6 against; the Democrats voted 46 for and 21 against.

LBJ voted against two different CR Acts.

 

[fatness]

“I don’t know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president’s enactment affects too many people, he’s violating the Constitution,” Schroeder said. “There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more problematic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.

“I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don’t see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture,” Schroeder added.

For those cheering on the Obama administration as the president gets set to unveil his executive action -- perhaps as early as this week -- this is the nut of it. There is a history, dating back to the '70s, of presidents using prosecutorial discretion when it comes to deportations. That those prior actions were smaller in scope doesn’t change the legal foundation upon which they and future ones rest.

“I’m not disagreeing with you,” chimed in John Baker Jr. midway through Schroeder’s remark. Baker, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center, had earlier accused the Obama administration of having, “as its purpose,” the goal of “destabilizing the republic.” But he also made the case that the way to stop a president this hell-bent on destruction was neither through lawsuits nor impeachment. It's through cleaner legislative language.

“If Congress wants to restrain the discretion of the president, they are supposed to do what the separation of powers encourages them to do: Write the statute tightly so that it will be actually administered the way you want it administered," Baker said. "The reality is many members of Congress don’t care how it is administered until somebody squawks about it. They don’t read the statutes, so how do they know how it is going to be administered.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/federalist-society-obama-immigration_n_6182350.html

A lawsuit or impeachment are going to be great theater, and both will fail. The president's not going to be removed from office over this. And voters will get to see a lot of politicians grandstanding and not governing.

And the chances of the Republicans writing a law to severely restrain the discretionary authority of the president (as bolded above), while they're trying to elect a Republican president 2 years from now, is about 0.

 

[timschochet]

Barry G is one of my idols, and his opposition to the CRA was principled and had nothing to do with racism- he was one of the least racist men of his time. But still, he was the GOP nominee and the blacks remembered his opposition.

Perhaps just as important was that with the passage of the CRA in 1964, almost all of the most vocal anti-integration white conservative southern Democrats switched their allegiance to the GOP, where they have remained ever since. This of course had a huge effect on the black vote going in the opposite direction.

 

[Courtjester]

CJ this has nothing to do with my views on illegal immigration. For the record my views are highly unpopular and always will be. I get that .

But shutting down the government is a different matter. If the President wants one appropriations bill, and Congress wants a whole bunch of them so that they can remove funding for Obama's executive orders, and the result of this disagreement is a shutdown, the public will blame Congress.

Well on this we will just have to disagree. If the Republicans send up an appropriations bill that gets seniors their checks and the soldiers their pay and keeps the parks open and Obama vetoes it, there is not a sane person in the US that will blame the Republicans in that situation. I don't care how you try and spin it.

During the first shutdown, the public still had a decent view of Obama and it was easy to think of the Republicans as just being a pack of racists that just wanted him to look bad. Fast forward to today, his approval ratings are in the tank, the Dems just got rolled in the elections--this is a new day and I believe it will damage the Dems brand in the short run (ie: the next 4 years)

 

[tommyGunZ]

CJ this has nothing to do with my views on illegal immigration. For the record my views are highly unpopular and always will be. I get that .

But shutting down the government is a different matter. If the President wants one appropriations bill, and Congress wants a whole bunch of them so that they can remove funding for Obama's executive orders, and the result of this disagreement is a shutdown, the public will blame Congress.

Well on this we will just have to disagree. If the Republicans send up an appropriations bill that gets seniors their checks and the soldiers their pay and keeps the parks open and Obama vetoes it, there is not a sane person in the US that will blame the Republicans in that situation. I don't care how you try and spin it.

During the first shutdown, the public still had a decent view of Obama and it was easy to think of the Republicans as just being a pack of racists that just wanted him to look bad. Fast forward to today, his approval ratings are in the tank, the Dems just got rolled in the elections--this is a new day and I believe it will damage the Dems brand in the short run (ie: the next 4 years)

Obama's poll ratings > Congressional Republican poll ratings.

 

[Courtjester]

CJ this has nothing to do with my views on illegal immigration. For the record my views are highly unpopular and always will be. I get that .

But shutting down the government is a different matter. If the President wants one appropriations bill, and Congress wants a whole bunch of them so that they can remove funding for Obama's executive orders, and the result of this disagreement is a shutdown, the public will blame Congress.

Well on this we will just have to disagree. If the Republicans send up an appropriations bill that gets seniors their checks and the soldiers their pay and keeps the parks open and Obama vetoes it, there is not a sane person in the US that will blame the Republicans in that situation. I don't care how you try and spin it.

During the first shutdown, the public still had a decent view of Obama and it was easy to think of the Republicans as just being a pack of racists that just wanted him to look bad. Fast forward to today, his approval ratings are in the tank, the Dems just got rolled in the elections--this is a new day and I believe it will damage the Dems brand in the short run (ie: the next 4 years)

Obama's poll ratings > Congressional Republican poll ratings.

Which means absolutely nothing at this point. The first shut down the Dems at least could spin it that the bad GOP doesn't want you to have health insurance. This time around, I can guarantee a lot of the Dems want nothing to do with this. I will take that a step further and predict that if the Republicans do what I suggested above, there will be a group of defectors from the Dems that will join in with the GOP in the smaller appropriation bills,

 

[snogger]

Tim.. A question I've always wanted to ask those in your realm of support ( Amnesty to all illegal immigrants, open the borders, etc..) is...

What percentage of Illegal Immigrants currently in America are making at least Minimum wage?

I assume that most are getting paid less then Minimum wage.. right? The whole idea they are here in the first place is "Cheap" labor..

So if you all of sudden allow all of them to work legally, do you think the same jobs they have now would still be available to them??

Just thinking that those that hired them in the first place did so because they are "cheap" labor.. Without that "cheap" tag allowed, wouldn't a lot of them lose the jobs they currently have?

Not trying to be here.. Just trying to get a understanding on how you think it would work?

 

[drummer]

Tim.. A question I've always wanted to ask those in your realm of support ( Amnesty to all illegal immigrants, open the borders, etc..) is...

What percentage of Illegal Immigrants currently in America are making at least Minimum wage?

I assume that most are getting paid less then Minimum wage.. right? The whole idea they are here in the first place is "Cheap" labor..

So if you all of sudden allow all of them to work legally, do you think the same jobs they have now would still be available to them??

Just thinking that those that hired them in the first place did so because they are "cheap" labor.. Without that "cheap" tag allowed, wouldn't a lot of them lose the jobs they currently have?

Not trying to be here.. Just trying to get a understanding on how you think it would work?

You don't have to ask tim, just look at the years 1980 until now. Sheesh.

 

[snogger]

Tim.. A question I've always wanted to ask those in your realm of support ( Amnesty to all illegal immigrants, open the borders, etc..) is...

What percentage of Illegal Immigrants currently in America are making at least Minimum wage?

I assume that most are getting paid less then Minimum wage.. right? The whole idea they are here in the first place is "Cheap" labor..

So if you all of sudden allow all of them to work legally, do you think the same jobs they have now would still be available to them??

Just thinking that those that hired them in the first place did so because they are "cheap" labor.. Without that "cheap" tag allowed, wouldn't a lot of them lose the jobs they currently have?

Not trying to be here.. Just trying to get a understanding on how you think it would work?

You don't have to ask tim, just look at the years 1980 until now. Sheesh.

care to expand? Or was that a jab at Tim.... or me? :whoosh:

 

[snogger]

So, from what I can see from this article .. all of this uproar and is over this:

He will likely extend deportation protections to parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for five years.

• Those who are eligible for deportation protection and have no criminal record will be made eligible for work permits,

correct

Based on the fact that the next president could easily just wipe this off the books, do many really think the 5+ million immigrants this would "help" will rush out and give their names out??

If they are hiding now, why would they want to signup and give away their hidden status only to fear that in two years the government will now know where they live and what they are doing..

Based on that article, they are not going to get any health benefits, food stamps, no path to citizenship...So in reality it isn't nearly as big of a deal as the Democrats or the Republicans are making of it..

Except for the fact he using executive order to do it..

If he put this EXACT worded bill in front of congress, with no riders or changes, both sides would see it as a starting place and I think it would pass.

Then again, I do cheer for a team that has never won a Superbowl and keep believing they will, so there is that

 

[HellToupee]

So what happens to our friendly visitors who dont want to pay the $$ to be part of the program?

 

[timschochet]

Tim.. A question I've always wanted to ask those in your realm of support ( Amnesty to all illegal immigrants, open the borders, etc..) is...

What percentage of Illegal Immigrants currently in America are making at least Minimum wage?

I assume that most are getting paid less then Minimum wage.. right? The whole idea they are here in the first place is "Cheap" labor..

So if you all of sudden allow all of them to work legally, do you think the same jobs they have now would still be available to them??

Just thinking that those that hired them in the first place did so because they are "cheap" labor.. Without that "cheap" tag allowed, wouldn't a lot of them lose the jobs they currently have?

Not trying to be here.. Just trying to get a understanding on how you think it would work?

It's a good question.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work. It's something we have to figure out. This is one of the reasons I don't believe in minimum wage, because it sets an artificial price on labor, and there will always be a black market to undercut it.

I am guessing that on a practical basis nothing will really change. Those illegals who receive cash wages (and this is the bulk of those who work for less than minimum wage) will continue to do so.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, from what I can see from this article .. all of this uproar and is over this:

He will likely extend deportation protections to parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for five years.

• Those who are eligible for deportation protection and have no criminal record will be made eligible for work permits,

correct

Based on the fact that the next president could easily just wipe this off the books, do many really think the 5+ million immigrants this would "help" will rush out and give their names out??

If they are hiding now, why would they want to signup and give away their hidden status only to fear that in two years the government will now know where they live and what they are doing..

Based on that article, they are not going to get any health benefits, food stamps, no path to citizenship...So in reality it isn't nearly as big of a deal as the Democrats or the Republicans are making of it..

Except for the fact he using executive order to do it..

If he put this EXACT worded bill in front of congress, with no riders or changes, both sides would see it as a starting place and I think it would pass.

Then again, I do cheer for a team that has never won a Superbowl and keep believing they will, so there is that

So what's the uproar, if this is simply something everyone agrees with and would pass both houses?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tim.. A question I've always wanted to ask those in your realm of support ( Amnesty to all illegal immigrants, open the borders, etc..) is...

What percentage of Illegal Immigrants currently in America are making at least Minimum wage?

I assume that most are getting paid less then Minimum wage.. right? The whole idea they are here in the first place is "Cheap" labor..

So if you all of sudden allow all of them to work legally, do you think the same jobs they have now would still be available to them??

Just thinking that those that hired them in the first place did so because they are "cheap" labor.. Without that "cheap" tag allowed, wouldn't a lot of them lose the jobs they currently have?

Not trying to be here.. Just trying to get a understanding on how you think it would work?

It's a good question.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work. It's something we have to figure out. This is one of the reasons I don't believe in minimum wage, because it sets an artificial price on labor, and there will always be a black market to undercut it.

I am guessing that on a practical basis nothing will really change. Those illegals who receive cash wages (and this is the bulk of those who work for less than minimum wage) will continue to do so.

Wait, you don't believe in minimum wage? Wat???

 

[snogger]

So, from what I can see from this article .. all of this uproar and is over this:

He will likely extend deportation protections to parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for five years.

• Those who are eligible for deportation protection and have no criminal record will be made eligible for work permits,

correct

Based on the fact that the next president could easily just wipe this off the books, do many really think the 5+ million immigrants this would "help" will rush out and give their names out??

If they are hiding now, why would they want to signup and give away their hidden status only to fear that in two years the government will now know where they live and what they are doing..

Based on that article, they are not going to get any health benefits, food stamps, no path to citizenship...So in reality it isn't nearly as big of a deal as the Democrats or the Republicans are making of it..

Except for the fact he using executive order to do it..

If he put this EXACT worded bill in front of congress, with no riders or changes, both sides would see it as a starting place and I think it would pass.

Then again, I do cheer for a team that has never won a Superbowl and keep believing they will, so there is that

So what's the uproar, if this is simply something everyone agrees with and would pass both houses?

well I'm guessing this "AS IS" with no riders would never get entered as a bill.. Can't just pass "simple" bills..

we have to throw in money for studies like.. how much do cow farts add to the Co2 levels ..

 

[timschochet]

Tim.. A question I've always wanted to ask those in your realm of support ( Amnesty to all illegal immigrants, open the borders, etc..) is...

What percentage of Illegal Immigrants currently in America are making at least Minimum wage?

I assume that most are getting paid less then Minimum wage.. right? The whole idea they are here in the first place is "Cheap" labor..

So if you all of sudden allow all of them to work legally, do you think the same jobs they have now would still be available to them??

Just thinking that those that hired them in the first place did so because they are "cheap" labor.. Without that "cheap" tag allowed, wouldn't a lot of them lose the jobs they currently have?

Not trying to be here.. Just trying to get a understanding on how you think it would work?

It's a good question.I'm not sure exactly how it would work. It's something we have to figure out. This is one of the reasons I don't believe in minimum wage, because it sets an artificial price on labor, and there will always be a black market to undercut it.

I am guessing that on a practical basis nothing will really change. Those illegals who receive cash wages (and this is the bulk of those who work for less than minimum wage) will continue to do so.

Wait, you don't believe in minimum wage? Wat???

No. I'm against ending it because that would be too disruptive. And I might even be for raising it if that will help people in the short term. But long term it doesn't work, because it's essentially a tarrif on labor. Wages are raised by increasing production and consumers. You can't do it artificially- maybe short term but it evens out in the end. If you pass a law doubling a man's wages he will have a lot more spending power- at first. But within a short period of time he will discover that he has even less spending power than he did before. That's Ludwig Von Mises 101.

 

[jonessed]

So, from what I can see from this article .. all of this uproar and is over this:

He will likely extend deportation protections to parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for five years.

Those who are eligible for deportation protection and have no criminal record will be made eligible for work permits,

correct Based on the fact that the next president could easily just wipe this off the books, do many really think the 5+ million immigrants this would "help" will rush out and give their names out??

If they are hiding now, why would they want to signup and give away their hidden status only to fear that in two years the government will now know where they live and what they are doing..

Based on that article, they are not going to get any health benefits, food stamps, no path to citizenship...So in reality it isn't nearly as big of a deal as the Democrats or the Republicans are making of it..

Except for the fact he using executive order to do it..

If he put this EXACT worded bill in front of congress, with no riders or changes, both sides would see it as a starting place and I think it would pass.

Then again, I do cheer for a team that has never won a Superbowl and keep believing they will, so there is that

They could a qualify for state/federal benefits depending on the state.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Republicans over the weekend threatening a government shutdown. That's sure to be popular.

They will pass a budget with funding to supprt this cut out. It's up to Obama to veto it.That was always how this was going to go down. They can't fund an executive order amnesty for 5mm+ people.

What funding is needed to not deport someone?

Yeah, I was kinda curious about this too. Seems to me this would be a money saver.

So much for this idea-

Many have suggested using legislation that must pass by Dec. 11, needed to keep the government funded, as a vehicle for enacting limits on Mr. Obama’s policies. That idea hit a roadblock Thursday when the House Appropriations Committee said that Congress cannot defund the primary agency involved in Mr. Obama’s plan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, because it is self-funded by fees. In fact, the agency could continue operating even if the rest of the government shut down.