White House Moves Ahead With Deportation Rules Congress Rejected

Democracy at its best…

“Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress’s constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens,” FAIR President Dan Stein said.

Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/18/obama-administration-to-review-all-deportation-cases/#ixzz1VTdez1NU

:shrug:

So, basically, Congress did not pass this bill, and it is not a law, but His Royal Majesty, King Barry of Obama, has decreed from on high that it will be done anyway, “because I have spoken—so let it be written, so let it be done”.

Wonderful. Laws that Obama doesn’t like, such as DOMA, he simply ignores and tells the Justice Department to not enforce, and whatever he thinks ought to be a law, such as this, he simply orders to treated as law and enforced as such.

Evidently the man is a meglomaniac and totally out of control, but do we hear any criticism from the progressives and the presstitutes? Nary a peep.

Maybe next he’ll declare that there’s no need for an election next November, because he has decided to stay in office indefinitely. I mean, if you can simply arbitrarily decide what’s law and what isn’t by royal decree, Congress, Constitution, and courts notwithstanding, why not?

Yay! Lets hear it for the demise of the Republican and three cheers for the Empire!!!

Obama has proven more than once that he has no regard for Laws of the Land, by allowing his agencies to make their own “rules” or ignore “laws” as he sees fit.

Obama needs to be impeached.
His disregard for the US Constitution is well known, and teaches young people that laws are not important if you are in power.
He is destroying this Country.

Sigh…ok, here goes…

You folks do not understand, and apparently neither does the media, what this is actually saying. That’s because pretty much all Americans are blissfully ignorant of our actual immigration laws and system, how it works, the day-to-day realities of it, etc. Someone here without status can frequently even be placed in removal proceedings, even detained and imprisoned awaiting removal, and yet wait months or years because the system is so bogged down. This isn’t providing some kind of extra-legal legalization program to anyone, they’re just saying they are going to make a concerted effort to expend limited government resources, money, time, and effort going after high priority detainees and persons in removal proceedings, like convicted criminals, drug traffickers, and the like, rather than children and people serving in the military. Why is that idea: focus on the actual dangerous people here without status FIRST, so terrible?! It makes good sense to me! And I’ll bet you if you had two undocumented people living in your apartment building, one of whom was a convicted rapist, and the other of which was an 8 year old schoolboy who grew up here, you’d rather they get rid of the rapist first too!

You explanation sounds nice, but considering Obama and Holder’s track record of actually following up on their rhetoric, it is easy to see why people are skeptical and tend to believe the opposite of what is actually claimed.

Blacksword: our objections have less to do with the illegal immigrants and their status themselves than it has to do with Obama acting unilaterally and enacting “laws” without benefit of Congress, courts, or Constitution----he simply says “I want this done”, and it becomes de facto law.

Can you not see what a dangerous precedent this creates? If he can simply say, “I don’t want this law enforced” (DOMA) and that has the bearing of law, or “I want this enforced as law” (DREAM Act) and that also has the bearing of law, then what’s to stop him from saying, “I’m going to suspend elections in November because I think I’m the only one who can turn the country around and I need to stay in office until things are fixed”?

You never see the police state coming until one day you wake up in it—and I don’t trust Barack Communist Obama any farther than I can throw an aircraft carrier.

And I’ll bet you anything, ANYTHING your little hearts desires that this “great plan” will not work. Further, it will have complete opposite results and that will be harmful to Americans. Why, because of the government’s and obama’s track records. Yeah, let’s expand government resources when they just increased our debt. Brilliant.

Unless you’re paying attention and have invested in property in South America.

Yes, believe me, I’m FAR more concerned about unchecked executive power and it’s dangers than are any of the so called “conservatives” out there, I’ve been vocally worried about it for YEARS, and not just in the last 24 months since the “other side” got into power. That’s called “consistency”, something the majority of both political parties have shown they completely lack.

But here Obama isn’t enacting any laws. He’s doing precious little in fact. These people still have no legal status or way of legalizing. If they’re detained, I’ll bet they’ll still be placed in removal. The Feds are just saying they’re going to focus on those here who really need removed, who are dangerous potentially, etc.

What? Who’s talking here about expanding government? It’s a conversation about WHERE those resources are spent. And, actually the government’s track record at deporting people is REALLY good! We do it hundreds of thousands of people a year. The government is great at it in fact! They’re good at killing people in wars, collecting taxes, deporting people, basically anything involving massive resources, manpower and planning and that’s unpleasant, government is good at.:smiley:

:thumbsup:

our objections have less to do with the illegal immigrants and their status themselves than it has to do with Obama acting unilaterally and enacting “laws” without benefit of Congress, courts, or Constitution----he simply says “I want this done”, and it becomes de facto law.

Couldn’t agree more, what a slippery slope we are on.

The 19 “positive factors” that “should prompt particular care and consideration” are:

• the person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
• the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;
• the person’s pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States;
• whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;
• the person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
• the person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
• whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
• the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
• the person’s ties to the home country and
• the person’s age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly;
• whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;
• whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative; ;
• whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing;
• whether the person or the person’s spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness;
• whether the person’s nationality renders removal unlikely;
• Whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;
• whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crime; and
• whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others.
sinelson.typepad.com/susan-i-nelson-immigrat/2011/06/ice-prosecutorial-discretion-memo-encourages-favorable-discretion-for-dreamers-immigration.html

So now that we have published our own “positive factors” to permit someone to break the law, let’s see how the “illegal” community reacts. Wife pregnant, you can stay – by the way US tax payers will cover the bill too.

Side note, in 2006 - $1.6Billion was spent on health care for illegal’s in Texas alone. usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

Cover what “bill”? Read some earlier posts and learn some facts about immigration in America. This story you posted is from 2006, gives an “estimate” of health care costs from a Texas government bureaucrat, and then admits he’s probably blowing smoke as such estimates are “sketchy” at best. It also admits they use far less health care on average, being typically young and relatively healthy, and most are afraid of going near a clinic or hospital for fear of deportation. Undocumented workers contribute billions a year in taxes, they have paid between $120-240 billion to Social Security as of 2007. Money they’ll never see under current law.

I am fairly well versed on immigration issues – but that is neither here nor there…

I believe I sited it as a 2006 report and gave the link so the reader can draw their own conclusion. I can find many studies and polls that are going to go both ways. Numbers ranging from $1.9B to $19B were published back in 1990’s. A 2010 FAIR study showed that illegal’s cost the government $113B annually, which contradicted a Perryman Report which says they contribute 285B in GDP in 2008. Again we can go all day and dispute the numbers – but before I move on, I would like to note, since the Immigration Reform and Control Act made it illegal to knowingly hire illegal’s, they are again breaking the law by forging documentation in order to secure these jobs – which allow them to pay into the system. Means justify the end?

Now, take that handful out of the equation (numbers again can be debated) and what are we left with – tax money paying for medical care. I am not sure how anyone can debate that fact, if an illegal immigrant goes to the ER without insurance, they receive care. That bill is dropped on the taxpayers.

Please, by all means let me know where my facts are wrong, and I will gladly reeducate myself, but please don’t misrepresent a disagreement in numbers as lack of knowledge.

But back to the original topic, the President circumventing the system is the greater issue – and officially saying how one can circumvent the law seems a little careless to me…

The president’s dealing with the reality of undocumenteds in the US seems close to the recently-stated position of US bishops, if you ask me.

Well, the large, reputable academic studies done by impartial economists in academia tend to show an overall net benefit to the economy from undocumented workers, or a net push, depending on the study. The studies by FAIR of course are going to show detriment: they are bigoted and wish, as part of their stated goals, to reduce ALL immigration, they want to prevent legal immigration as much as possible too, so can hardly be called reputable or unbiased and objective. Their studies always leave out important factors that would hurt their desired outcomes, and are not taken as credible by academics who actually research the issues involved.

Also, you’re mistaken in, apparently, implying that all tax paying illegals obtained fake documents, forged ID’s, etc. About half the presently undocumented population entered in legal status and just overstayed. Many of these people could have obtained valid ID’s, SSN’s, etc. when in legal status. Also, many others file tax returns paying taxes on cash money they were given for employment, and use ITIN’s they can get from the IRS to do so. Are some using counterfeit ID’s? Sure, the number though is not fully known and probably in the minority.

Many illegal immigrants who were facing deportation despite having no criminal record will be allowed to stay in the country and apply for a work permit under new rules from the Homeland Security Department. Republicans are balking at the change.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Thursday that the department will focus on deporting illegal immigrants who are criminals or pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Napolitano announced the plan in a letter to a group of senators who support revamping the immigration system. Under the change, approximately 300,000 deportation cases pending in immigration court will be reviewed case by case.

“From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities,” Napolitano wrote in the letter. “Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission – clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from individuals who pose a threat to public safety.”

The decision comes amid continued protests from immigrant communities and others that the administration has been too focused on deporting people whose only offense is being in the country without the proper documents or who have been arrested for traffic violations or other misdemeanors. There have also been widespread complaints about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities program, which uses fingerprints collected in state and local jails to identify illegal immigrants in a federal immigration database.

cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-grants-de-facto-amn

An administration giving a reward aka. citizenship for breaking the law. Is the Obama administration going to get rid of the visa system entirely next? It seems ridiculous to have one rule for one set of people and another rule for others, why should visa applicants have to fit certain criteria, and if not, be rejected when illegal immigrants get amnesty.

I guess I should have broken it down again…

Refer back to my post – the key here is illegal’s. You are correct in the fact that anyone can get an ITIN, however an ITIN alone does not make you eligible for employment - stamped right on the form. If they are authorized to work in the country then they wouldn’t be doing so illegaly…It’s easy to confuse IRS and INS definitions, but they are not the same…

So, if they are illegal and paying taxes – then it would stand to reason there would be some illegal activity taking place - since illegals cannot work Maybe it was unfair to assume there was some degree of forgery; it could just be some employer who is disregarding the law – but bottom line, someone is not in compliance with the law and they are working illegally.

Regarding numbers… I was using the FAIR report to show the disparity in numbers, and again not claiming their credibility. Notice it was posted with the Perryman numbers…

We can talk all day about who’s numbers are more accurate, but below is from the Congressional Budget office in 2007–

The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.

Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized Immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.

The article states that they will be allowed to apply for a work permit. It does not grant citizenship. It appears to be more of a ‘reform’.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.