Question Re: Executive Action

[SCBoiler]

Sure, but I don't agree with how 'racist' has been transformed to mean anyone that doesn't agree with liberals. But, like I said I don't know GMM possibly as well as you do. I'm an occasional lurker but I don't get bogged down in the threads that tend to get into who's a racist and who isn't.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:
Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I appreciate your perspective, and in some cases, no doubt, undocumented immigrants are competing with citizens for jobs. I offer the following anecdote simply to illustrate that there are occupations where that is not the case.

During an internship, I had the opportunity to go with an advocacy group to speak with a congressperson about immigration reform. In our group was a farmer from the Lafayette area who regularly hires migrant workers to help with harvest. When asked why he hired migrant workers instead of Americans, he commented that he has tried to hire Americans - only two in ten years have even accepted the job - and both of them quit after one day, saying things like, "I'd rather go on welfare than work this hard."

That might be the exception, but it shows how much issues like immigration reform and welfare entitlement reform and so many other policy issues are all intertwined.

 

[SCBoiler]

No problem, always like to have a respectable debate.

As far as your anecdote, you're right there are jobs that Americans won't do, but the free market will work that out. I would rather a farmer pays an American more for his labor and raise the price of his crop so he can still profit, then to continue sending our money out of the country. Which is what illegals, mostly, do with the money they make. Which is fine, I have nothing against a man from Mexico doing whatever it takes to help his family. But that's not good for our people. We shouldn't put ourselves in that situation, where a person gets more from being unproductive than being productive. It's not good financial sense and it does nothing for the good of the person.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: Well......

Originally posted by GMM:
The continued existence of illegals in this country has been used by the left to justify welfare, schooling, driver's licenses, and other social services for illegals. Now comes amnesty or something close to amnesty. Soon they'll be demanding complete amnesty and instant citizenship. At every step along the way the illegals are portrayed as victims, hard-working, family-loving, America-loving, and filled with more potential than people born here. Why? Its all a part of the strategy to make them citizens so they can vote. And we all know which party they'll vote for. There have already been efforts to allow them to vote in local elections.

Lemme grab my tinfoil hat...

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by SCBoiler:
Silly? The border was supposed to be secured when Reagan was in office, but it's a long process and never got finished, if even started. Just like everything done by government if it is politically expedient money will get shifted elsewhere. I guess you trust government to do it if they say they really, really promise this time. Who's silly?

So flip that on it's head. We have 11 million people living in America illegally. We should do nothing about that until the border is secure, which you admit is a lengthy process that should've been done 20 years ago. Excellent logic.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Really?

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
we can't hope to deport 11 million people, so let's look at an alternative solution.

Who on the " far right" doesn't agree with this? The big difference is us conservatives want the spicket turned off before we do this. Whoa! That's crazy!

Posted from Rivals Mobile

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say whether the far right agreed or disagreed with this, only that prosecutorial discretion is the basis for Obama's action. Whether you agree or disagree with that is up to you, but I would wager that most "far right" Conservatives disagree, and view all 11 million illegal immigrants (note, I do not call them 'undocumented') and precisely that: illegal, and thus subject to deportation.

Agree with pastorjoe, why do we have to turn off the flow first? Seems like an arbitrary thing to care so much about in the long run.

In 1986, approximately 2-3 million illegals essentially got amnesty. Now we are looking at 11-14 million illegals looking for amnesty. If we don't secure the border and do a better job of tracking people that get student visas, in 20 years it will be another 20 million illegals seeking amnesty. We have to turn off the flow, so we can manage the current problem, without letting it get larger and more unmanageable. If you have a hole in your boat, bailing like crazy won't make the water stop coming in. You have to take positive action to plug the leak, then you can make progress on dealing with the water in the boat.

Passing another comprehensive immigration bill will NOT do a thing to eliminate the problem. If they actually enforced the laws that are on the books now, we could go a long way toward solving the problem. Both parties have been negligent in enforcing immigration laws, much to our detriment.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:
Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I appreciate your perspective, and in some cases, no doubt, undocumented immigrants are competing with citizens for jobs. I offer the following anecdote simply to illustrate that there are occupations where that is not the case.

During an internship, I had the opportunity to go with an advocacy group to speak with a congressperson about immigration reform. In our group was a farmer from the Lafayette area who regularly hires migrant workers to help with harvest. When asked why he hired migrant workers instead of Americans, he commented that he has tried to hire Americans - only two in ten years have even accepted the job - and both of them quit after one day, saying things like, "I'd rather go on welfare than work this hard."

That might be the exception, but it shows how much issues like immigration reform and welfare entitlement reform and so many other policy issues are all intertwined.

That addresses another serious issue. When welfare is lucrative enough that people can turn down productive jobs to return to welfare, then the safety net has become a hammock. We don't have a shortage of people who can do those jobs, we have a shortage of people who are motivated to do those jobs, because we live in a nanny state. Another problem created by government.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

The reason we have to secure the border first is because the reason we are where we are is because we've already been down this road. The border security was part of Simpson mazzolli and never got done which is why we are here. If we don't secure the border we will wash rinse and repeat. .... Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

That's a silly sentiment. "We have to do it first because we didn't do it before." No, what you mean is, "we have to make sure we do it." It doesn't have to come before or after we document people already here. The two are unrelated if we actually do both!

Every person that comes here illegally is competing for work with an American and probably a LEGAL immigrant as well. We already have legal immigration, work permits, etc. Not everyone residing in this country and working here legally is an American citizen. I think - hope - you are aware of this, because it seems that those on the far right - like GMM - think that by documenting illegals with work permits and visas, they can vote for Hillary in 2016 as well.

Dead people have been voting for decades. What makes you think illegals can't find a way to vote as well? Is it because an illegal voting is illegal? That should really dissuade them......vbg

 

[JFPurdue1]

First of all, Reagan and Bush did not grant amnesty through executive order. That's something the left is trying to get people to believe, but it never happened. Bush wanted amnesty and tried to get it through congress, but the citizens raised hell and stopped it. Why? Because in 1986 CONGRESS passed a bill saying that a limited number of illegals would be granted amnesty, but they'd secure the border, too. Well, three times as many people were granted amnesty as were promised and the border was never secured. Reagan signed the bill into law and most conservatives/republicans would tell you that it was his greatest mistake as president.

The notion that Obama can just suspend deportations through executive order... that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for him to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with his appropriate role as president.

 

[qazplm]

one was actual amnesty, one isn't. Heck, even Megyn Kelly sees that.

Prosecutorial discretion has a pretty long history, and it's pretty lock solid legally.

As you say, at the end of the day, both recognized practical realities and attempted/attempt to deal with that reality.

 

[qazplm]

here's the deal

if the right REALLY cared about this issue, instead of the politics of it, they'd pass legislation putting SEVERE penalties on hiring illegals and then they turn ICE inwards to spot checking businesses for the hiring of illegals.

The money would dry up, and folks wouldn't come here anymore because they'd not be able to find a job.

Of course, food prices would skyrocket because instead of paying a dollar an hour to an undocumented worker, you'd have to pay actual minimum wage...

 

[qazplm]

actually

yes, he can prioritize aka exercise prosecutorial discretion. Happens all the time at every level, just because a law is on the books does not mean it HAS to be enforced, or do you yell at the cop who lets you out of a ticket, or believe that every prosecutor takes every single case to trial?

11 million or more illegals means you are simply not going to be able to deport them all. Not going to happen. So you'd be an idiot NOT to prioritize criminals, violent folks, and whatnot over children and people who are here and don't commit any crimes.

 

[Stairwayto7]

On the right, those lacking reason might include things like: birthers, denial of climate change, young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers, Benghazi conspiracy, opposition embryonic stem cell research, and racism.

My wife did extensive research on each vaccine given to infants and newborns. She is not an "anti-vaxxer" but rather chose to pick vaccines that were actually relevant to an infant's health and disregard vaccines that were more environment based. Many parents start their children in daycare at an early age, thus they are exposed to many other people who come from a plethora of environments. So to be honest the most intelligent people are the ones that actually research the drugs being administered to your children instead of those who just cave and pay for the full spectrum or those who blindly deny the usefulness of vaccines
.
The thing that bothers me as a conservative and also as a soldier about Benghazi is that at no point did anyone of significance in our government stand up and say, "yes we dropped the ball on this situation and yes we failed Ambassador Stevens." Had anyone of any real rank just owned up to the fact that our State Department, our government failed, a lot of people would have moved on from the issue and only the nut jobs would be out there screaming conspiracy on their silly little blogs. As a soldier with pretty extensive ties to the Special Operations community I know people who are in the unit based somewhere in Germany that are the go to unit for any crisis situation in that region. They WERE spun up and were never given authorization to go in. It may have been to late, but to abandon all hope and wait for the dust to settle is purely political cowardice. We train for harsh situations and tough odds, not the cupcake missions. We know the risks, we are the ones who face the enemy. Politicians worry about approval ratings and scandals. When a military operation fails, the commander takes the blame. Yet there was not a single soul in Washington willy to own up to the failure in Benghazi, because of the teflon suits they were nothing sticks to them.

 

[SKYDOG]

Re: actually


It will mean more votes and that's the bottom line.

 

[qazplm]

right

because being anti-immigration isn't also about getting more votes from a certain subset?

 

[tantalum]

When you single out people like that it is just downright rude. That is not the way to get a worthwhile discussion going.
What do you think you are doing asking to hear from "reasonable conservatives". That was not a constructive way to start a post! Are you trying to exclude people from the board with certain ideologies? It is not your board!

 

[LSLBoiler]

Re: right

Opposing the granting of citizenship to illegal aliens does not equal being anti-immigration. Being that you're a progressive open-borders guy I would think you'd know the difference. Particularly since you're also the most intelligent and insightful poster in the history of the Internet.

 

[GMM]

"a certain subset"

Otherwise known as "Americans". Possibly even "a majority of Americans". How awful.

Did you forget to say "racist"?

 

[threeeputtt]

Good article on the differences from Obama's and Bush/Reagan. The Senate approved measures 81-17!
This post was edited on 11/23 3:07 PM by threeeputtt

Difference from 30 years ago

 

[atmafola]

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:
Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I appreciate your perspective, and in some cases, no doubt, undocumented immigrants are competing with citizens for jobs. I offer the following anecdote simply to illustrate that there are occupations where that is not the case.

During an internship, I had the opportunity to go with an advocacy group to speak with a congressperson about immigration reform. In our group was a farmer from the Lafayette area who regularly hires migrant workers to help with harvest. When asked why he hired migrant workers instead of Americans, he commented that he has tried to hire Americans - only two in ten years have even accepted the job - and both of them quit after one day, saying things like, "I'd rather go on welfare than work this hard."

That might be the exception, but it shows how much issues like immigration reform and welfare entitlement reform and so many other policy issues are all intertwined.

That addresses another serious issue. When welfare is lucrative enough that people can turn down productive jobs to return to welfare, then the safety net has become a hammock. We don't have a shortage of people who can do those jobs, we have a shortage of people who are motivated to do those jobs, because we live in a nanny state. Another problem created by government.

There's no welfare lucrative enough. Welfare has essentially been dead since the Clinton reforms. Yes food stamps still exist, and medicaid still exists, but welfare is gone.

i am guessing the farmer was talking about pre-Clinton reforms. Food stamp, when all is said and done is a net positive for kids and farmers. I think its one of the spending we get the most bang for our buck.

 

[qazplm]

Re: right

I didn't cast anything on what the subset was, nevertheless a certain subset WILL come out and vote for OR against folks based on their immigration vote...thus, folks affected by that vote a certain way, or are afraid to find any compromise.

But hey don't let me get in the way of your sarcasm.

 

[qazplm]

nope

polling doesn't suggest a majority of Americans want a hardline stance on kids, or folks who don't commit crimes.

 

[SCBoiler]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Silly? The border was supposed to be secured when Reagan was in office, but it's a long process and never got finished, if even started. Just like everything done by government if it is politically expedient money will get shifted elsewhere. I guess you trust government to do it if they say they really, really promise this time. Who's silly?

So flip that on it's head. We have 11 million people living in America illegally. We should do nothing about that until the border is secure, which you admit is a lengthy process that should've been done 20 years ago. Excellent logic.

Where did I say we should do nothing until the border is secure? I said we shouldn't do amnesty until the border is secure. There are other things we can do. Illegal aliens should be sent back from where they came from as always. Why do you make this so hard? Maybe my "logic" isn't as good as yours, but doing the same things that haven't worked before isn't very sound either is it? You're so smart, why don't you let me know what you would do, because so far all you've done is tell me how stupid my ideas are.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCBoiler]

Originally posted by atmafola:

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by SCBoiler:


Every person that comes here illegally is competing for labor and social services with an American. I think we should have legal immigration, but it has to be a process, there's no way around that.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I appreciate your perspective, and in some cases, no doubt, undocumented immigrants are competing with citizens for jobs. I offer the following anecdote simply to illustrate that there are occupations where that is not the case.

During an internship, I had the opportunity to go with an advocacy group to speak with a congressperson about immigration reform. In our group was a farmer from the Lafayette area who regularly hires migrant workers to help with harvest. When asked why he hired migrant workers instead of Americans, he commented that he has tried to hire Americans - only two in ten years have even accepted the job - and both of them quit after one day, saying things like, "I'd rather go on welfare than work this hard."

That might be the exception, but it shows how much issues like immigration reform and welfare entitlement reform and so many other policy issues are all intertwined.

That addresses another serious issue. When welfare is lucrative enough that people can turn down productive jobs to return to welfare, then the safety net has become a hammock. We don't have a shortage of people who can do those jobs, we have a shortage of people who are motivated to do those jobs, because we live in a nanny state. Another problem created by government.

There's no welfare lucrative enough. Welfare has essentially been dead since the Clinton reforms. Yes food stamps still exist, and medicaid still exists, but welfare is gone.

i am guessing the farmer was talking about pre-Clinton reforms. Food stamp, when all is said and done is a net positive for kids and farmers. I think its one of the spending we get the most bang for our buck.

Welfare is gone? That's a cute little talking point you must have read on some liberal blog. I believe that something around 47% of Americans take more from the government than they give. That's called "welfare". The government produces 0. Therefore, if you get anything more from the government than you put in that is welfare. You may not like that word, but that is what it is. That money came from somewhere, ie someone. There is no such thing as "most bang from our buck" if it comes from government. Every dollar that goes to government gets skimmed from the bureaucracy and goes back out at less, necessarily. If the government brings in $1 trillion, the cost of spreading that money back out is $x billion. Leaving $1T - $xB. Therefore, there is no such thing as "bang for your buck". The free market is the only place money gets multiplied.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCBoiler]

Re: nope

Originally posted by qazplm:
polling doesn't suggest a majority of Americans want a hardline stance on kids, or folks who don't commit crimes.

Awwwww, throw in kids and folks and yeah your right the majority of Americans don't want to punish them. I would actually say almost all Americans don't want to hurt "folks and kids", but, as a nation, we should do what's best for OUR folks and kids first. Letting people cross our border illegally to compete with OUR folks and kids is not a good thing.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCBoiler]

Re: actually

Originally posted by qazplm:
yes, he can prioritize aka exercise prosecutorial discretion. Happens all the time at every level, just because a law is on the books does not mean it HAS to be enforced,

You must be a lawyer to spin shit that bad. I know liberals hate the rule of law, but this country was kinda founded on it. Just because "it happens" doesn't make it right. But, you probably don't care about what's right because you're always looking for the loophole. Congratulations, I bet you have a
bunch of clients that love you for getting them off. I'm sure they were all innocent and you had no personal gains to be made. I believe that if something is good there shouldn't have to be some loophole used to get it done. It should be done because that's what's best. It's one thing to do it on a level that affects one person, but it's a much bigger deal to do it on a level where it affects millions. But keep on excusing the one you voted for so you can sleep better.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

Re: actually

Since I'm a military attorney and have been my entire legal career and that I've both prosecuted and defended and my pay doesn't change because of results then your bet looks kinda idiotic.

I think directing limited resources correctly is what's right.

 

[SCBoiler]

Re: actually

Originally posted by qazplm:
Since I'm a military attorney and have been my entire legal career and that I've both prosecuted and defended and my pay doesn't change because of results then your bet looks kinda idiotic.



I think directing limited resources correctly is what's right.

Ahh, I'm sorry about the characterization then, and thank you for your service.

Not sure what you mean by directing limited resources correctly, though. That statement could pretty much be agreed upon by everyone.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

it;s called prosecutorial discretion

been around for a long long time, and it means you don't prosecute every single offense to the fullest extent of the law for practical reasons, ignoring the justice and equity reasons why prosecutors also sometimes decide against prosecution.

Sounds to me like despite your mocking of attorneys, you don't understand much about how the process works other than your own ideas of what you think it should look like with zero experience in the area.

Like I said, if a cop lets you out of a ticket with a warning, I'm pretty sure you don't demand that the cop cite you to the fullest extent of the law... and if you were alleged with an offense, I've no doubt you'd want the best defense lawyer you could afford, and you wouldn't say prosecute me if the DA decided to let you off with deferred adjudication or not to charge you at all.

 

[qazplm]

so

what's best for our folks and kids is to spend vast amounts of money and resources deporting every last 11 million plus? Even though thanks to those folks we pay a lot less for food then we would otherwise? So having hard working, law abiding folks around is bad for the rest of us?

The problem is folks want to turn this into a black/white, all or nothing, good/bad situation, and it's way more shades of gray.
While it is true that some jobs would be available to folks without them now, they would be below minimum wage to minimum wage jobs at best for most. Undocumented Immigrants aren't usually pulling in 20 bucks an hour.

Certainly, border security is important for any nation, and legal immigration should be encouraged, but much like the war on drugs (which doesn't help illegal immigration by the way) the answer involves a mixture of targeting those who commit crimes or fraud and not those who are just trying to survive in the world.

 

[SCBoiler]

Re: it;s called prosecutorial discretion

Originally posted by qazplm:
been around for a long long time, and it means you don't prosecute every single offense to the fullest extent of the law for practical reasons, ignoring the justice and equity reasons why prosecutors also sometimes decide against prosecution.



Sounds to me like despite your mocking of attorneys, you don't understand much about how the process works other than your own ideas of what you think it should look like with zero experience in the area.



Like I said, if a cop lets you out of a ticket with a warning, I'm pretty sure you don't demand that the cop cite you to the fullest extent of the law... and if you were alleged with an offense, I've no doubt you'd want the best defense lawyer you could afford, and you wouldn't say prosecute me if the DA decided to let you off with deferred adjudication or not to charge you at all.

I may not have gone to law school, but I've been around long enough and have been sued and dealt with attorneys, and have attorneys in my family, so I have a little bit of understanding. And with all due respect, I probably understand the law better than you because I would never compare a cop letting a person out of a citation to completely ignoring federal law and announcing that you will ALLOW people to break the law. That would be more like cops announcing that even though the speed limit on I-65 is 65mph they will not give tickets to anyone no matter what speed they are going. You can come up with whatever fancy name you want for it, but that doesn't make it right or a good idea.

Oh yeah you never did address my contention that this president (and AG) has no regard for the rule of law. That is a huge deal since we are the only country that used to practice it, and is part of the reason for the greatness of this country.

You do know what the rule of law is don't you?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This post was edited on 11/24 8:23 PM by SCBoiler