Shared publicly  - 
 
Two views on the President's announcement that the administration will stop deporting some undocumented youth in the U.S.

Both sides make it clear that this is not a permanent solution, but was the decision a political one?

--
More: http://to.pbs.org/LPFV9p

#immigration   #news   #politics   #DREAMact  
21
3
Ariel Pena's profile photoPeter Moody's profile photoSabeena LoBello's profile photoBrent Bankosky's profile photo
45 comments
 
This type of action has been supported by both parties and some on both sides have supported stronger policy efforts.  Why did it take 3 and a half years?  There are some potential risks as well for future illegal immigrants risking the journey to sneak their kids into the US. 
 
Obama is desperate and he thinks this will get him votes, especially since his administration is trying to stop states from verifying that voters are actually eligible to vote, which is absolutely deplorable in and of itself.
 
+Brent Bankosky "why did it take 3 and a half years"? congress.


+Tonia Addison-Hall The lawsuit in florida is a little more complex than you make it out to be (or are you talking about something other than florida?).
 
The democrats are fighting it everywhere. It is NOT racism or unconstitutional to verify people are who they claim to be and are eligible to vote!
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall the lawsuit by the DOJ in florida isn't a partisan issue, it's an attempt to enforce federal law. Rephrased: If you think the lawsuit in florida is partisan, then you implicitly accept that florida's purging was partisan.
 
There is not a problem with voter fraud. That whole thing was manufactured to keep democrats from voting. This will get him votes. The dream act was struck down by a conservative congress not to protect anything, or for any reason other than to throw a wrench in Obama's plans. Congress isn't doing what's good for our country. They only want to do what is bad for Obama. +Mitt Romney wishes he could do something like this.
 +Barack Obama +Tonia Addison-Hall
 
There are illegals voting. There are documented cases and even if it may not seem like a lot, ANY that are caught is only a fraction of those that aren't.

It's a lame excuse to try to justify it.
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall Who's justifying anything? Florida is attempting to violate federal law by purging their voter rolls < 90 days before an election. It's really as simple as that.

Also, ITYM "undocumented". An action is illegal, a person is not.
 
The Rick Scotts are free to purge more like the Filipina, naturalized citizen who was so proud to register as a Republican to "fight voter fraud".
 
+Peter Moody The people here without papers DID commit an illegal act! It is illegal to enter this country without following the law and proper procedure.

It's bullcrap that people who waited for YEARS to get into the country legally have to stand by while these people get easy street!

Just because their parents commited the crime doesn't mean they should have it easy! They need to wait in line like everybody else.

I see nothing wrong with wanting to make sure registered voters are actually still eligible, especially since there is a big election coming up.
 
Nobody is saying that they didn't break the law. That's just the point. It's the law that's wrong. The fact that they have to wait years to get in should tell you that there's something wrong here especially when they have family waiting for them. 
+Tonia Addison-Hall 
 
Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN. Why do liberals keep quoting this jerk and Bill Maher as if they are newsmen? Ignorance? Seems so...
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall I think you're misunderstanding the subtlety of the point. The act of entering the country without proper paper work is illegal. The person who does that is not illegal. Calling undocumented workers (or illegal aliens), "illegals" is pejorative and meant as an insult. It's also wrong.

You also seem to think that immigration is a zero sum game. It's not. Or at least, this policy doesn't affect the sum in anyway. This won't reduce the number of H1-B's or green cards (etc) available for people who enter(ed) the country legally.

Finally, no one sees anything wrong with making sure registered voters are actually still eligible to vote, but there's little issue of The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/nvra/nvra_faq.php) which states that voter rolls can't be purged < 90 days before an election. that's why the DOJ is suing florida, not because they're trying to verify voter status, but because they're doing right before an election.
 
+Daniel Slaughter I actually agree that we need immigration reform. But we do NOT need an open door and we do NOT need amnesty, it only encourages more people to enter illegally.
 
+Peter Moody Your view is absurd. People say "illegal" simply because it's shorter than saying "illegal immigrant". It is absolutely not an insult. It's the truth.

As for that law, how did that even pass?! It doesn't even make any sense. What reason is there to limit it? Really, do explain why.
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall this is not an open door policy. This is not amnesty. This is a path to a work-permit.

Before replying, take the time to read the details of what you're criticizing.
 
I heard and read about it but there is nothing in writing. The details remain unclear. Don't start insulting people.
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall "There are illegals voting" says more about your (lack of) understanding of the issues than it does about your desire to express yourself more efficiently.
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall 

"there is nothing in writing"

wut? I just linked the FAQ for the voter registration act. click on it, hit 'ctrl-f', search for '90 days'.
 
Not that... You were taking about the new "policy" Obama announced, saying it is a path to a work permit, did you not?

Anyway, with so many AMERICANS out of work, it's not a great idea right now and doing this is obviously a ploy from the president to get votes. It's sickening.
 
+Peter Moody I asked you to explain how that 1993 legislation was useful, what purpose does it serve? I don't want an article description, I was asking for YOUR opinion.

And just because these people are already here means nothing. I guarantee you not all of them are working, and the jobs they do have, illegally, pay very little. The "guest workers" would go get jobs that paid more. Doing this will cost Americans jobs when we SORELY need to look out for ourselves first.
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall now you're back to be concerned about the voter registration act?  The particular provision is obviously in place to prevent voter disenfranchisement. Presumably if the voter rolls are purged 3+ months ahead of time, people erroneously purged will have a reasonable opportunity to rectify the situation; less than 3 months and the law says they don't.

Is that so difficult to understand?

re: work permits and unemployment. Follow your argument to it's logical conclusion. What you're arguing for is protectionist legislation.
 
Forget politics lets look at what is legal. Neither the president or the AG of the #DoJ  are above the law - they are to be governed BY IT just like everyone else. Whether or not one agrees with the current #immigration   laws or not - to advocate for this and to 'turn a blind eye' to this IS against the #law . If the people (not the #government ) are unhappy with the immigration laws or any other law in this nation; then the #people  need to tell their elected public servants what they want and then make it so. If left to their own vices, #DC  will only make laws that serve and benefit DC not the people. #Obama  needs to stand down and reverse course or be put on trial and convicted for advocating breaking #federal  laws that are on the books.
 
Peter Moody: Why is Congress to blame when the President didn't need to go to the Congress on this policy action.  Both sides seemed to support this policy action and there was Democratic leadership in the congress in 2009 and 2010.  Seems like this was done just months in front of the election for votes.   
 
+Peter Moody Oh, ok... So how many people have been "erroneously removed"? Probably none. Even if some were removed by mistake, 90 days seems plenty of time to fix it to me.

Again, don't insult people. When you resort to insults it only proves you are immature or losing an argument. Typical liberal bull. "Wahhh... I can't argue with the facts so I'm going to name-call, call you a liar and cover my ears... Wahhh!"
 
+Brent Bankosky my understanding is that this executive order basically implements part of the dream act which was initially proposed over 10 years ago. The latest incarnation of the dream act has been held up in congress, and never actually made it to the presidents desk to be signed into law.

Also, you realize that work permits don't allow people to vote, right? This isn't citizenship, this isn't amnesty, this isn't an open door immigration policy; this is a work permit, a 2-year work permit at that.

+Michael Weaver what?
 
WE need the jobs MORE than people who aren't even citizens!
 
+Tonia Addison-Hall 5 seconds of google later:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/31/154020289/world-war-ii-vet-caught-up-in-floridas-voter-purge-controversy

"Again, don't insult people. When you resort to insults it only proves you are immature or losing an argument. Typical liberal bull. "Wahhh... I can't argue with the facts so I'm going to name-call, call you a liar and cover my ears... Wahhh!""

There's so much win in this paragraph. It's like your second and third sentences didn't know that they followed the first. <3.
 
NPR...Yeah. I tried listening to their "news" a few days ago and it was full of liberal viewpoints, they aren't even trying to be neutral. That is supposed to be "public"? Yuck.

I give up trying to talk to you, Peter. Enjoy your ignorance... It's all rainbows and unicorns for you. Happy, hapoy, joy, joy.
 
Enjoy life in your impenetrable shell, +Tonia Addison-Hall. whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your world-view.
 
Facts are what I use to form MY opinions, not other people's drivel.
 
If the assumption that a change in policy from the DOJ is an open door policy, and will encourage more illegal entrance into the US, then the disconnect between reality and assumptions are infinite. 

As for the new policy enforced by the DOJ, it actually was supported by the president, if you choose to call it "executive privilege" then so be it. He has what is called, the doctrine of unitary executive. meaning, the president holds control over the entire executive branch. He tipped the power because Congress didn't do their job.

The DOJ is one of those agencies that falls under the executive branch. The doctrine is based on Article Two, clause I of the United States Constitution. It posits strict limits on Congress which seeks to always assert complete power over the president, is not viable, the reasons are overt. He committed nothing unconstitutional in by-passing Congress. It is the right of the president to enforce policies relating to his executive branch.

Ronald Reagon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush used the unitary doctrine.

1987, Ronald Reagan issued a signing statement that declared: "If this provision were interpreted otherwise, so as to require the President to follow the orders of a subordinate, it would plainly constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority as head of a unitary executive branch". 

As for Americans out of work and this being an inopportune time, again, assumptions. If the US is in poor economic condition, it is of its own making and its lack of comprehensive and definitive long term solutions.

Just as some illegal individuals in the US are not working, there are Americans not working. The assumption that we need jobs for Americans has nothing to do with someone else taking them. They cannot take, what we don't have much of and if they do qualify for a position, it's for a job most citizens do not want, McDonald's, Jack in the Box, housekeeping, doing landscape in wealthy neighborhoods in the dead of heat, childcare, etc.. Illegal individuals do not hurt the economy. Citizens hurt their economy by rejecting a job that seems beneath them. It is a fact, just do research.

And there is the state by state GPD, California has the leading GPD (in millions) and we have the largest concentration of undocumented individuals in the nation. Montana is 49th of the 52. Don't worry, we have them all over here. :)

I do agree with that the law is the law in terms of illegal entrance, but such unnecessary ranting is futile for such a small feat.

There is no educating the ignorant that choose to be, because it serves their bias view of the world. Education is a book away from ignorance. Ignorance is one of the nefarious ills of society. Nothing is worse than a blind person that cannot see, than that one which can.

Couldn't be more clear.
 
I think of this as a civil rights issue because, as Mitt Romney said "the children are here through no fault of their own".  I don't like Romney, but he hit the nail on the head.  

Currently there is no justice for individuals who came here as children, who went to school, speak English, graduated and have stayed out of trouble.  They didn't break U.S. immigration laws, their parents did!  So why, when they turn 18, is there no recourse for them to obtain residency?  It is deplorable that there is no legislation concerning the immigration status of young adults who were brought here as children.
 
Thanks for the novel, +Angelica Dzana . You have an agenda and it's blatantly obvious you're for the arrogant jerk in office.

Are PBS viewers now all koolaid-drinking libs, too? What happened to OBJECTIVITY and NEUTRAL REPORTING in this country?

I'm uncircling PBS and muting this post. Idiots abound here.
 
Well said +Angelica Dzana .

No one wants an open door policy. I personally don't think complete amnesty would work very well either, but there needs to be a path. There needs to be hope for these people. It is undeniable that the system is broken. I think we can all agree on that.
+Tonia Addison-Hall 
Add a comment...