Is Obama trying to do away with Immigration Laws?

Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Jun 2011, 11:17 am

Homeland Security officials misled the public and Congress last year in an effort to downplay a wave of immigration case dismissals in Houston and other cities amid accusations that they had created a "back-door amnesty," newly released records show.

The records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, include a series of internal memos from Immigration and Customs Enforcement's chief counsel in Houston dated last August ordering attorneys to review all new, incoming cases and thousands already pending on the immigration court docket and to file paperwork to dismiss any that did not meet the agency's "top priorities."


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chr ... z1QUfCmBnx

Since DHS is under the direction of the White House, it looks like Obama is involved in this, or at the very least he appointed the people that are trying to created backdoor amnesty.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

27 Jun 2011, 11:26 am

Is that why he's deporting so many people?



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

27 Jun 2011, 11:26 am

Good for Obama. Some progressive legislation from him for a change.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

27 Jun 2011, 11:30 am

AstroGeek wrote:
Good for Obama. Some progressive legislation from him for a change.


I know, right? W was far more pro-immigration than Obama.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Jun 2011, 11:35 am

AstroGeek wrote:
Good for Obama. Some progressive legislation from him for a change.


Legislation is the business of Congress, not the President.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

27 Jun 2011, 12:07 pm

lets see what your mom said about it
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/02/report-record-number-illegals-deported-year/
I would never go against what fox news says.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Jun 2011, 12:10 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
lets see what your mom said about it
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/02/report-record-number-illegals-deported-year/
I would never go against what fox news says.


That was what ICE is reporting and Fox News is reporting on what ICE reported.

It has since come out that ICE lied in their report.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Jun 2011, 1:20 pm

Hey, you know you granted blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants?

Ronald f*****g Reagan.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

27 Jun 2011, 1:23 pm

Orwell wrote:
Hey, you know you granted blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants?

Ronald f***ing Reagan.
Really? I know for a fact Dubya has but that's new to me. It makes sense though, I have a feeling the purpose of the Drug War was to cause inflation in the drug market to make it more profitable for the Contras and such.

Another interesting thing was that Reagan supported the assault weapons ban and Bush would've signed it had the bill landed on his desk. Neoconservatism is a joke.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 27 Jun 2011, 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

27 Jun 2011, 1:27 pm

Cheap immigrant labor is good for business and bad for unions.

Do the math.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

27 Jun 2011, 7:43 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
lets see what your mom said about it
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/02/report-record-number-illegals-deported-year/
I would never go against what fox news says.


That was what ICE is reporting and Fox News is reporting on what ICE reported.

It has since come out that ICE lied in their report.


So, what were the correct figures, then?



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

27 Jun 2011, 9:16 pm

Oh noes. AMNESTY!

Do you know what that means? That the illegals already in your country would be able to turn into non-illegals. And thus they will no longer have to work for cheap and thus they will no longer be easy task force that steals jobs from you! And to become citizens they would have to go through that exam and that means that they will HAVE to speak English and be assimilated and stuff.

That's the end of the world. But I doubt the neo-con in office would actually do such thing.


_________________
.


AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

28 Jun 2011, 5:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Good for Obama. Some progressive legislation from him for a change.


Legislation is the business of Congress, not the President.

Sorry, let me rephrase that so there are no hairs to split: "Good fro Obama. Some progressive proposals from him for a change."



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Jun 2011, 12:09 am

AstroGeek wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Good for Obama. Some progressive legislation from him for a change.


Legislation is the business of Congress, not the President.

Sorry, let me rephrase that so there are no hairs to split: "Good fro Obama. Some progressive proposals from him for a change."


So, you're saying you want the United States of America to collapse.

1. A country that cannot enforce its borders will soon cease to exist.

2. This also will ensure 1 party rule, like a dictatorship.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

29 Jun 2011, 8:41 am

Inuyasha wrote:
So, you're saying you want the United States of America to collapse.

That is something that merits considering. If too many people enter one country, then the weight of all those people could cause the ground to give way, until *BOOM* the whole country collapses at once.

Quote:
1. A country that cannot enforce its borders will soon cease to exist.

The various states within the USA are quite lax about enforcing their borders. In fact, I can walk from Illinois to Indiana, without any border guards even looking at me. So far, Indiana still exists.

Quote:
2. This also will ensure 1 party rule, like a dictatorship.

Which party rules Indiana?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Jun 2011, 11:34 am

You know what this looks like to me? This looks like the bureaucracy trying to do the best job it can with an impossible legislative mandate and insufficient resources to discharge it.

Congress has created a Byzantine legislative framework, and a requirement for a significant amount of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal decision making--but Congress has provided insufficient resources to provide tribunal and court time for those decisions to get made.

So what's a bureaucrat to do? The only thing that can be done is to recommend priorities, get those priorities approved and then deliver on them. Based on my experience in my country's immigration system, I would expect those priorities to include: cases involving security concerns; cases involving risks to public health; and cases involving criminality (other than immigration offences).

You absolutely do not want cases like these to fall between the cracks because you are tied up in dealing with hundreds of cases that, in the final analysis, present less risk to the public and to program integrity.

In an ideal world, every single case would get the benefit of a full and fair hearing, conducted in an expeditious manner. Well if that is what Congress wants then Congress is going to have to pony up the cash to make that happen. Otherwise, it is simply creating unfunded mandates which cannot be fulfilled, even with the best will in the world.


_________________
--James