I do not approve of this at all, but surely it would include Hondurans. The murder rate for late teem through early 30s is astronomical. 25% chance of getting murdered each year if I remember right.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not approve of this at all, but surely it would include Hondurans. The murder rate for late teem through early 30s is astronomical. 25% chance of getting murdered each year if I remember right.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
It sounds like applies to all nationalities.Originally Posted by dawg1984
I saw what was purported to be an outline today. What I saw didn't appear to distinguish by nationality.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
I guess you will need to define extreme capitalism.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
Hmmm
It was a little more restricted than I was expecting. There were hints it wouldn't be comprehensive.
It will be interesting to see if DUI convictions bar granting the deferral.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
Maybe another day.
This will put repubs in a bind since it is so narrow, despite the estimated affected is 5-million. These "common sense" rules he laid out are what a majority agree can happen. And at face value thus far, nothing appears to violate any laws or separation of powers.
DUI is not a felony, so it would not disqualify any applicants.
A DUI is currently being used to deny deferrals.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
I've seen my first legal memo on this. It really doesn't appear to expand all that much beyond the current practice. Prior to the executive order, a person here for seven years and with a minor child who is a citizen would be granted a deferral if they came into custody of the ICE. In the removal process they would be given a temporary work permit which got them a social security card and eligible for a driver's license. Assuming the immigrant had not committed a felony of any kind, a domestic or a firearm charge, or a DUI, ICE would decline (defer) prosecution. He kept his work permit though.
It appears that now this can happen without the immigrant being placed in ICE custody. What I didn't see was whether this would be a path to citizenship. That indeed would be a change. Current DOCA immigrants are not on a path to citizenship.
Of course, as more information comes in there will be more to it.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
So the gov't did this in 1986 as a "one time only deal" because there was no way to export all the illegals, but the understanding was that we would solve the illegal problem and not have to ever do this again. Congress and the President agreed on it.
20 years later there are even more illegals and we want to do another "one time only deal" because there are too many illegals to export. Congress wants to deal with the underlying problem first, but the president doesn't want to wait for that... this must be done NOW. So he rushes a unilateral executive action without the consent of Congress.
20 years from now we will be doing this again because there will be no way to deport all the illegals. We are not solving the problem of illegal immigration. We are saying, "Come to America illegally and eventually it won't matter." I guess the question is, "Why do we even have immigration laws?" We don't. Should we? Or is that un-American?
Congress has been urged to do something for a long long time - both parties. Nothing has been done. This is needed, but is just a stop gap until they do SOMETHING!
Not completely true. The Democrats controlled the White House and Congress in 2008 and 2009 and chose to do nothing and keep it as an issue for the next Congressional elections. Then they lost Congress and Obama wanted to use immigration as an issue for his re-electon. Then he wanted to use it as an issue for Congressional elections this year. Now all elections are over and he wants to unilaterally call the shots. However, that's not his job. He is supposed to only sign or veto the Congressional plan.
Obama has been telling the illegals he wished he could act unilaterally, but that would be unconstitutional and that's not how our democracy works. Now he just said, "Screw it, I'm doing it. What are you going to do about it." Now it will be interesting to see if he gets away with it.
Moral turpitude, I'd think.
What will be interesting is seeing what 2016 GOP presidential candidates will do being as the majority of Americans want immigration reform. Any "get tough" talk about immigrants being "criminals" or "wetbacks" won't sit well with Hispanic voters.
I think everyone wants reform, but reform means different things to different people. Democrats want it to mean amnesty and Republicans want it to mean close our borders. A compromise would be to close our borders and give amnesty (one last time). I guess. They say it is more difficult than that though.
Step 1: Secure the borders
Step 2: Deport criminals.
Step 3: Review the status for those here legally.
After that, I'm ok with the president's plan except I don't believe anything he says.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
