Obama orders amnesty for illegals.

[OtherCheek]

"It's a medium-risk, high-reward strategy," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "I think you risk angering people who are upset about immigration, yes. But for a president who’s got to win Florida, Nevada, Colorado, it is definitely something that can give the Latino community something to rally around."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...gration-policy

This is the worst President I've ever seen in my lifetime or read about before that. "Amnesty for the age demographic who are most likely to vote for Obama." This guy Obama has no respect for the will of the people unless they are the people who adore this celebrity president.

I guess I should thank Obama for destroying "opportunity" in the "land of opportunity". That way illegals are more likely to leave on their own.

[Thersites]

Yeah! Amnesty for immigrants will destroy our country, and anyone who does it is just cynically manipulating the electorate.

Oh. Wait. Reagan. I keep forgetting about him.

More seriously, not deporting is not actually amnesty. Moreover, your comment about the age demographic is inane: the people who are not being deported because of this are not eligible to vote anyway.

Regardless of whether it's an election-year ploy, it's a logical policy, if only because the DREAM Act is still under serious consideration.

[Darth Executor]

Yeah! Amnesty for immigrantscriminals will destroy our country, and anyone who does it is just cynically manipulating the electorate.

Fixed.

[Thersites]

Fixed.

The people in question were only children when the crime in question occurred. Shouldn't that change not only how we perceive the event, but how we want our legal institutions to treat the person?

[Teallaura]

The DUM Act has zero chance of becoming law in the next four to eight years - and Obama just made it less likely.

Yeah, it'll help with a demographic he already had. It will hurt badly with a demographic he doesn't have. But mostly it's yet another thing the courts are likely to smack him on - which might just hurt him in the demographic he must win in order to keep his job. Undecided independents are unlikely to like blatant political stunts. At the moment probably a net plus but by November probably a net loss because the nuance will likely get lost and it begins to look like supporting illegal immigration which is a losing issue.

[Teallaura]

The people in question were only children when the crime in question occurred. Shouldn't that change not only how we perceive the event, but how we want our legal institutions to treat the person?

Beyond mitigation? Er, no.

FYI: You cannot be genuinely guilty of a crime you had no way to prevent or not commit (this being about the only example of the latter) so the issue with kids isn't their criminality but their parents. That said, if Mom steals her kid a Porsche and the kid is totally unaware it's stolen property the kid is not guilty of a crime - but he still doesn't get to keep the car. That the crime was committed by someone else without the child's consent does not entitle the child to the fruits of that particular tree, be it property crime or immigration policy.

[Thersites]

Beyond mitigation? Er, no.

FYI: You cannot be genuinely guilty of a crime you had no way to prevent or not commit (this being about the only example of the latter) so the issue with kids isn't their criminality but their parents. That said, if Mom steals her kid a Porsche and the kid is totally unaware it's stolen property the kid is not guilty of a crime - but he still doesn't get to keep the car. That the crime was committed by someone else without the child's consent does not entitle the child to the fruits of that particular tree, be it property crime or immigration policy.

Freedom from the legal limbo in which our current immigration policy leaves these people is less like a porsche than it is clean drinking water; one is an example of extreme luxury; the other is something that is necessary.

Hey, if you can use a stupid example, so can I

(If I come up with something that actually fits well, I'll let you know. I'm thinking something like paper and notebooks for someone in school, or possibly a phone number or mailing address- they're things that are necessary for the person to function adequately in the given society. )

[Teallaura]

Freedom from the legal limbo in which our current immigration policy leaves these people is less like a porsche than it is clean drinking water; one is an example of extreme luxury; the other is something that is necessary.

Hey, if you can use a stupid example, so can I

(If I come up with something that actually fits well, I'll let you know. I'm thinking something like paper and notebooks for someone in school, or possibly a phone number or mailing address- they're things that are necessary for the person to function adequately in the given society. )

Car or clothing - luxury or necessity - there is no difference. You do not get to be the beneficiary of a criminal act merely because you didn't know/couldn't prevent the act. Unless no remedy exists - you can't give back the cake you ate () - you do not get to continue to benefit from a criminal act once it is discovered. FYI: you become an accomplice once you do know if you fail to report the crime.

So, while I have no issue with a judge delaying deportation for medical reasons or some limited other reasons (waiting a few months for graduation, for example) I do have an issue with allowing people to benefit from criminal activity of any sort. By its nature, such hand waving encourages criminality and disrespect for the law. Barring legitimate claims for amnesty, or considerations for mitigating factors (waiting for graduation), or humanitarian grounds (letting someone complete treatment for whatever) those who are not here legally should be required to return to their country of origin, and in the case of innocent children, allowed to begin application for legal entry without prejudice.

[Darth Executor]

The people in question were only children when the crime in question occurred. Shouldn't that change not only how we perceive the event, but how we want our legal institutions to treat the person?

No, they weren't, because it's an ongoing crime. I don't blame them from trying to get as far away from a craphole like Mexico though. I chiefly blame Obama for further inflating the employment market and making an even bigger joke of the rule of law just so he could rally a few more of his retarded supporters.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I've got to say that it infuriates me to no end when people dehumanize others by labeling them "illegals."

It's good legislative policy and excellent politicking. I'm still not decided on whether it's a justifiable use of executive power, however. Deciding not to enforce deportation of resident aliens who were children when they entered the country is justifiable, as the executive branch does have prosecutorial discretion to determine how it wants to proceed with deportation cases. What worries me about this particular policy, though, is the offer of a two-year work permits to non-citizens — unless I'm mistaken, recipients of work visas generally have to overcome the presumption that they are not intending to immigrate to the US by proving various factors. Resident aliens, by definition, cannot overcome such a presumption, so that particular offer of work permits might be an overreach.

On the whole, though, it's pretty brilliant. So long as the DoJ has more deportation cases than they can handle at any given time, it certainly has the ability to determine which kind of cases it will prioritize and which kind of cases it will discard. Politically, this steals any merit that Rubio might have won with "DREAM-lite" and forces the GOP, and specifically Romney, to either basically agree with Obama or raise thunderous hell over the issue. If the latter, the GOP risks energizing Latino voters in the worst way possible for GOP efforts. If the former — if the main criticism is that the idea is good but Obama should leave that job to congress — the immediate rebuttal is "Wait, wait, wait . . . didn't y'all filibuster the DREAM Act in 2010?" The GOP leaders either look like they are basically admitting being the obstructionist force in Congress (even on policy they agree with!) or look like they absolutely disagree with the principles of the DREAM Act, alienating Rubio and Latino voters en masse.

Romney is an excellent example of how badly this places the GOP. Today, Romney said that he basically agrees with Rubio that long-term action needs to be taken for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in America as resident aliens. According to Romney today, the president's action makes this process more difficult because executive orders are short-term solutions and can be overturned by the next president. Apart from the fact that it is the GOP preventing the DREAM Act from passing, we can actually look at Romney's immigration policy, something he tried to portray during the primary as to the right of Perry and Gingrich:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

Mitt Romney opposes all “magnets” that entice illegal immigrants to come to our country illegally and stay here. He will establish a tamper-proof employment verification system like E-Verify that will enable employers to hire only those legally permitted to work and deny jobs to those here illegally. This will turn off the jobs magnet that attracts so many unskilled workers to cross the border illegally or overstay their visas.

. . .

Mitt Romney opposes amnesty because he believes that it acts as a magnet encouraging illegal immigration. The last amnesty law passed in 1986 granted legal status to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. In the decades since, the illegal immigrant population has quadrupled. Mitt believes that an amnesty should not be permitted to happen again. Illegal immigrants who apply for legal status should not be given any advantage over those who are following the law and waiting their turn. Mitt absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to “cut in line.

© source where applicable

Now Romney has to square the circle: does he oppose all "magnets" (and this is certainly being described as a magnet by the right-wing talk show hosts today!) or does he agree with the principle of Obama's policy? Does he think that resident aliens who came to America as children should be provided a respite from fear of deportation or will he "fully enforce federal immigration law," as it says on his web site? Either way, Romney has been set up to look, once again, as a core-less Etch-a-Sketch man, willing to say whatever will put him on top of an issue that particular day.

In short, it's a brilliant strategy by the Obama administration by conventional thought. How it plays out in political practice is still up in the air, however, and the offer of work permits for known resident aliens might be an over-reach of executive power.

—Sam

[seanD]

I don't think it matters much anymore. From the reports I've been getting, both public and private sources, southern immigrants are leaving this crumbling empire....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...DdT_story.html

[Darth Executor]

I've got to say that it infuriates me to no end when people dehumanize others by labeling them "illegals."

How do you dehumanize others by labeling them "illegals"? Only humans can commit crimes...

It's far more likely that it infuriates you because it makes it harder to demagogue people as bigoted or racist.

[Ansgar Seraph]

How do you dehumanize others by labeling them "illegals"? Only humans can commit crimes...

It's far more likely that it infuriates you because it makes it harder to demagogue people as bigoted or racist.

Um, I'd say it makes it much, much easier to demagogue people as bigoted or racist, if that's your bag.

We don't reduce people who drive without insurance or litter or engage in other illegal activities down to such terms. It's purely pejorative, entirely unnecessary and serves the sole purpose of distancing this set of people from that which would produce sympathy or empathy. In short, dehumanizing.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

I've got to say that it infuriates me to no end when people dehumanize others by labeling them "illegals."

Then how about "law breakers"? or "Welfare free loaders"?

In short, it's a brilliant strategy by the Obama administration by conventional thought. How it plays out in political practice is still up in the air, however, and the offer of work permits for known resident aliens might be an over-reach of executive power.

—Sam

Playing politics with our nations laws is "brilliant"? Really?

How can you dehumanize people by calling them "aliens"?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Then how about "law breakers"? or "Welfare free loaders"?

How about "resident aliens" and you can tack on "many, if not the great majority of them, in school or working"?

Playing politics with our nations laws is "brilliant"? Really?

Well, you can respond to what I actually wrote. That's kind of why I, you know, wrote it.