Is Obama trying to do away with Immigration Laws?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

Is that why he's deporting so many people?

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

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

Legislation is the business of Congress, not the President.

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.

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

Ronald f*****g 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.

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

Do the math.

So, what were the correct figures, then?

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.

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.

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.


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.


Which party rules Indiana?

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.