Obama: DHS will issue work visas to young undocumented immigrants

[KingOrfeo]

The Nation reports:

After years of complaints from immigration rights groups about the administration’s deportation policy—which is expected to toss 400,000 immigrants from the country this year—the White House announced a significant policy shift this morning. The Department of Homeland Security said that young people (between 16 and 30) who have no criminal histories will be issued work visas allowing them to find work and stay in the country.

Despite the stark-naked political motivations—to win over Latino voters and box out Congressional Republicans, who have been talking about introducing legislation with similar intent—the policy change is still meaningful. (And it shouldn’t really be a surprise that politicians do things for political reasons, though I think undocumented young people could legitimately wonder why this wasn’t enacted two years ago, when it was clear the DREAM Act was dead in Congress).

Under the new policy, as many as 800,000 young undocumented immigrants could stay in the country indefinitely if they are between 16 and 30, have no criminal histories, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, and graduated from high school (or obtained a GED, or served in the military). Under those qualifications, they can obtain a two-year visa with no limits on how often it can be renewed.

This is doubtless a huge relief to many people who came to the country without documentation when they were young and have known no other home, and have been trying to build a life while under constant fear of deportation.

Unlike previous easements of deportation policy, like last summer’s announcement that only people with criminal histories would be targeted, this shift is important because the government will issue work visas conferring legitimate legal status on people instead of just granting an understanding that they won’t be deported. Also, the policy is affirmative, meaning one can approach DHS and apply for the visa instead of waiting to be caught by authorities.

But there are several important caveats. Since this is an executive action, it could (and likely would) be reversed by President Romney in six months. Granted, the administration had no choice to go this route, since House Republicans have already declared the DREAM Act dead, but undocumented young people still know they are walking on shaky ground even with the new policy.

Previous administration efforts to ease deportations also create reasons to be skeptical. Though the administration claimed it would exercise discretion and deport only those with violent criminal histories, deportations only dropped an almost imperceptible two percent.

Without question, the new policy isn’t enough and the undocumented need a comprehensive immigration strategy to be enshrined through legislation. But with Republicans like Rubio already saying the new policy is “welcome news,” the administration may be pulling the debate to the left and making a comprehensive solution more likely.

Issues for debate:

1) Is this in any way a bad idea? I can't see any downside, frankly.

2) Could it backfire on Obama electorally? I can imagine the screams of "Amnesty!" starting any minute now. (And the Freeptards do not disappoint . . .) OTOH, Romney has not (yet) taken any immigration hard-line, so maybe it won't even be an issue. Come to think of it, not even the Tea Partiers talk much about immigration -- yet; this might be the signal for them to start.

 

[koalabear]

Soros says.......

 

[Sean Renaud]

Issues for debate:

1) Is this in any way a bad idea? I can't see any downside, frankly.

2) Could it backfire on Obama electorally? I can imagine the screams of "Amnesty!" starting any minute now. (And the Freeptards do not disappoint . . .) OTOH, Romney has not (yet) taken any immigration hard-line, so maybe it won't even be an issue. Come to think of it, not even the Tea Partiers talk much about immigration -- yet; this might be the signal for them to start.

1) It could potentially increase unemployment, especially amongst the youth and minority communities as 800k more people suddenly enter the work force legally. Somehow I doubt that'll have much of an effect in reality since it's not like they weren't already here.

2) A lot of people, myself included feel rather strongly about illegal immigration. Honestly this is where (if a more plan doesn't develope around this) Obama goes from a good choice for president, to the lesser of two evils for me. I got nothing against these kids (who am I calling kids, I've got two more years in that age bracket) but we know that we aren't going to be deporting their parents either nor their children. Regardless of what Obama says this IS defacto amnesty. Sure they can't vote. Most Americans don't vote so honestly I don't see a real difference there.

I'm not against amnesy in the long term. We obviously aren't going to hunt down between 12 and 21 million people depending on who's numbers you use. We need to get e-verify in place and used, get actual penalties and set them high enough that it's not worth the risk to hire illegals first then provide a path to citizenship.

 

[eyer]

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

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 me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

One year ago this ^ Constitution-revering comment was uttered by Obama after he failed to get the Dream Act legally implemented, the Legislative branch of our federal government having voted the legislation down. Today, the Traitor-in-Chief proclaims that he is above the Constitution's intentional separation of government powers and can dictate the very law that he is only empowered to execute.

I personally believe in open borders and do not believe anyone should have to prove themselves in any way in this great nation as long as they obey its laws...

...I believe in welcoming guests with open arms (not social welfare) and hammering hard those who come to fraud our system and violate the rights of any within our borders.

But this isn't about how I feel about the illegal/legal immigration issue or how my allegedly fellow-citizen Obama feels about the illegal/legal immigration issue...

...this is about the law of the land - the Constitution of the United States of America - and the President's constitutional power is only enumerated as to execute (enact & enforce) only the laws the Legislative branch passes, as his Office is expressly prohibited from making any law at all. The elected, as required by the Constitution to enter the Office of President, must affirm his oath to defend, protect, and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America. Barack Hussein Obama has lied upon that oath and has clearly stationed himself above the the law of the land.

When are the American people going to stand-up and demand this man resign his Office?

He champions the assassination of American citizens without any 5th Amendment due process consideration at all...

He champions the indefinite detainment of American citizens if he deems them enemies of the state, again with no consideration of the 5th Amendment at all...

He champions the indiscriminate drone murder of innocent civilians by labeling them all "militants" as he authorizes daily acts of war in other countries...

He champions the most thorough intelligence/surveillance net man has ever experienced over his own fellow citizens...

...now he proclaims that he can set legal precedent that the Constitutional expressly states the Executive branch has no such power to brandish.

Fvck the traitor and fvck all his enablers who support and vote for him...

 

[Mike_Yates]

We'll grant amnesty to illegal immigrants as long as they vote for the democrats!

 

[Sean Renaud]

We'll grant amnesty to illegal immigrants as long as they vote for the democrats!

Except these people won't get voting rights till 2022 at the soonest. At the very least that's long game.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

1) It could potentially increase unemployment, especially amongst the youth and minority communities as 800k more people suddenly enter the work force legally. Somehow I doubt that'll have much of an effect in reality since it's not like they weren't already here.

2) A lot of people, myself included feel rather strongly about illegal immigration. Honestly this is where (if a more plan doesn't develope around this) Obama goes from a good choice for president, to the lesser of two evils for me. I got nothing against these kids (who am I calling kids, I've got two more years in that age bracket) but we know that we aren't going to be deporting their parents either nor their children. Regardless of what Obama says this IS defacto amnesty. Sure they can't vote. Most Americans don't vote so honestly I don't see a real difference there.

I'm not against amnesy in the long term. We obviously aren't going to hunt down between 12 and 21 million people depending on who's numbers you use. We need to get e-verify in place and used, get actual penalties and set them high enough that it's not worth the risk to hire illegals first then provide a path to citizenship.

Americans dont like pets who break the ticket line with no consequences.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

One year ago this ^ Constitution-revering comment was uttered by Obama after he failed to get the Dream Act legally implemented, the Legislative branch of our federal government having voted the legislation down. Today, the Traitor-in-Chief proclaims that he is above the Constitution's intentional separation of government powers and can dictate the very law that he is only empowered to execute.

I personally believe in open borders and do not believe anyone should have to prove themselves in any way in this great nation as long as they obey its laws...

...I believe in welcoming guests with open arms (not social welfare) and hammering hard those who come to fraud our system and violate the rights of any within our borders.

But this isn't about how I feel about the illegal/legal immigration issue or how my allegedly fellow-citizen Obama feels about the illegal/legal immigration issue...

...this is about the law of the land - the Constitution of the United States of America - and the President's constitutional power is only enumerated as to execute (enact & enforce) only the laws the Legislative branch passes, as his Office is expressly prohibited from making any law at all. The elected, as required by the Constitution to enter the Office of President, must affirm his oath to defend, protect, and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America. Barack Hussein Obama has lied upon that oath and has clearly stationed himself above the the law of the land.

When are the American people going to stand-up and demand this man resign his Office?

He champions the assassination of American citizens without any 5th Amendment due process consideration at all...

He champions the indefinite detainment of American citizens if he deems them enemies of the state, again with no consideration of the 5th Amendment at all...

He champions the indiscriminate drone murder of innocent civilians by labeling them all "militants" as he authorizes daily acts of war in other countries...

He champions the most thorough intelligence/surveillance net man has ever experienced over his own fellow citizens...

...now he proclaims that he can set legal precedent that the Constitutional expressly states the Executive branch has no such power to brandish.

Fvck the traitor and fvck all his enablers who support and vote for him...

Lincoln did it. Roosevelt did it. Wilson did it. But Americans grow weary of these Lesser Gods, and repudiate the groups that make them possible.

 

[mercury14]

Americans dont like pets who break the ticket line with no consequences.

What ticket line? These people are getting resident status and work permits, not free citizenship.

 

[mercury14]

1) It could potentially increase unemployment, especially amongst the youth and minority communities as 800k more people suddenly enter the work force legally. Somehow I doubt that'll have much of an effect in reality since it's not like they weren't already here.

2) A lot of people, myself included feel rather strongly about illegal immigration. Honestly this is where (if a more plan doesn't develope around this) Obama goes from a good choice for president, to the lesser of two evils for me. I got nothing against these kids (who am I calling kids, I've got two more years in that age bracket) but we know that we aren't going to be deporting their parents either nor their children. Regardless of what Obama says this IS defacto amnesty. Sure they can't vote. Most Americans don't vote so honestly I don't see a real difference there.

I'm not against amnesy in the long term. We obviously aren't going to hunt down between 12 and 21 million people depending on who's numbers you use. We need to get e-verify in place and used, get actual penalties and set them high enough that it's not worth the risk to hire illegals first then provide a path to citizenship.

I agree, the unemployment argument is lame. Most of these people probably already had jobs. And if they're in college or the military then we should be fine with them working in American society. Even if none of them currently have jobs, well that's 800k more consumers to do business with.

 

[Liar]

Do I read that right that a 30 year old illegal immigrant who came to the US as a 25 year old could get a work visa? Seems like an arbitrary line in the sand with no specific rationale.

I understand the argument for a zero tolerance policy - deport everyone. I don't agree with it, but it's consistent. You can point to a simple principle and say: This.

I understand the argument for amnesty, visas, whatever, for those who came as kids or juveniles. Then there's a legal case for "Hey, I had no say in the matter. Blame my parents, but don't punish me".

And I understand the argument for saying "Screw it, amnesty for everyone, as long as they're not, y'know, axe murderers."

I don't get what principle this latest definition is based on. Anyone?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Nation reports:



Issues for debate:

1) Is this in any way a bad idea? I can't see any downside, frankly.

2) Could it backfire on Obama electorally? I can imagine the screams of "Amnesty!" starting any minute now. (And the Freeptards do not disappoint . . .) OTOH, Romney has not (yet) taken any immigration hard-line, so maybe it won't even be an issue. Come to think of it, not even the Tea Partiers talk much about immigration -- yet; this might be the signal for them to start.

1) Are their parents going to be included?

If it is such a great idea, why didn't he do it in time to save the 2010 elections? Same for Gay Marriage and the soon to come student loan forgiveness and calls for mortgage forgiveness?

There is plenty of downside to not enforcing the law and doing an end-run around Congress.

2) It could not matter.

It's the ECONOMY stupid!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Do I read that right that a 30 year old illegal immigrant who came to the US as a 25 year old could get a work visa? Seems like an arbitrary line in the sand with no specific rationale.

I understand the argument for a zero tolerance policy - deport everyone. I don't agree with it, but it's consistent. You can point to a simple principle and say: This.

I understand the argument for amnesty, visas, whatever, for those who came as kids or juveniles. Then there's a legal case for "Hey, I had no say in the matter. Blame my parents, but don't punish me".

And I understand the argument for saying "Screw it, amnesty for everyone, as long as they're not, y'know, axe murderers."

I don't get what principle this latest definition is based on. Anyone?

This policy is designed for one narrow and a slightly larger purpose. The narrow purpose is to expose the Republican as cruel and hateful by offering up, yet again, the image of the holy, unassailable victim. No matter what your take on the action it will be regurgitated and you hate young hispanic women who can't go back to Mexico because they don't speak the language, don't no anybody and won't be able to find work.

The broader picture is that is is yet another appeal to a block of identity voters. Look what I'm doing for you! Hispanics, you got my back?

 

[mercury14]

Do I read that right that a 30 year old illegal immigrant who came to the US as a 25 year old could get a work visa? Seems like an arbitrary line in the sand with no specific rationale.

The OP's article isn't very clear. The person has to have come to the US as a child.

 

[mercury14]

This policy is designed for one narrow and a slightly larger purpose. The narrow purpose is to expose the Republican as cruel and hateful by offering up, yet again, the image of the holy, unassailable victim. No matter what your take on the action it will be regurgitated and you hate young hispanic women who can't go back to Mexico because they don't speak the language, don't no anybody and won't be able to find work.

The broader picture is that is is yet another appeal to a block of identity voters. Look what I'm doing for you! Hispanics, you got my back?

You always seem shocked and outraged when politicians do political things though.

There's very little down side compared to the up. This is a step in the right direction.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

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 me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

One year ago this ^ Constitution-revering comment was uttered by Obama after he failed to get the Dream Act legally implemented, the Legislative branch of our federal government having voted the legislation down. Today, the Traitor-in-Chief proclaims that he is above the Constitution's intentional separation of government powers and can dictate the very law that he is only empowered to execute.

...

"That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress...,"
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2008

 

[mercury14]

"That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress...,"
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2008

Yeah if only Obama was making up a law then you'd have a point.

 

[Liar]

The OP's article isn't very clear. The person has to have come to the US as a child.

Ah. Alrighty then.

 

[mercury14]

As expected, Romney is being a huge fucking spineless pussy on the matter.

During the primary, Mitt Romney said he would veto the Dream Act, but in recent weeks he has seemed open to a proposal by Sen. Marco Rubio to grant Dreamers work permits but not a path to citizenship. Shortly after Obama's speech, Romney said the president's action would "make it more difficult to reach a long-term solution."

Romney adviser Kevin Madden said on MSNBC that the move is "political" and that Romney will stay focused on the economy. It's telling that the Romney team--eager not to alienate Latino voters--isn't attacking Obama on the substance of the move, but only the process and motivations behind it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ecision-legalize-young-illegal-165949610.html


Romney folds on his values in lightning-quick fashion! Even for him.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah if only Obama was making up a law then you'd have a point.

Breaking the law? Who said he broke the law?

We're engaging in one of your favorite tactics; implying the "H" word...

A_J's corollary #5, “When lacking reason and sound argument, the New Age Liberal charges headlong into ‘debate’ with emotional cries of Hypocrisy. The New Age Liberal is, of course, immune to and incapable of Hypocrisy. That would require hard and fast standards.”

 

[mercury14]

Breaking the law? Who said he broke the law?

We're engaging in one of your favorite tactics; implying the "H" word...

A_J's corollary #5, “When lacking reason and sound argument, the New Age Liberal charges headlong into ‘debate’ with emotional cries of Hypocrisy. The New Age Liberal is, of course, immune to and incapable of Hypocrisy. That would require hard and fast standards.”

I never said you said he broke the law. Are you even reading the right thread? And I never said you were a hypocrite on this thread. You're all over the place today, aren't ya?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'd debate the contents and parameters of the executive order if I could find it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

The Media just suck. Fucking opinion...

To benefit from the protection, they must have lived in the US continuously for five years, have no criminal record or have graduated from high school or served in the military.

They are eligible for two-year work permits, renewable indefinitely. The act does not provide a path to citizenship.

The plan tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican senator Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the Dream Act.

It's a mini-Dream Act, enacted by executive order, a total makeover of the administration's immigration policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...portation-undocumented-migrants?newsfeed=true

 

[mercury14]

I'd debate the contents and parameters of the executive order if I could find it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

The Media just suck. Fucking opinion...

To benefit from the protection, they must have lived in the US continuously for five years, have no criminal record or have graduated from high school or served in the military.

They are eligible for two-year work permits, renewable indefinitely. The act does not provide a path to citizenship.

The plan tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican senator Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the Dream Act.

It's a mini-Dream Act, enacted by executive order, a total makeover of the administration's immigration policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...portation-undocumented-migrants?newsfeed=true

Good.

Although it's a path to citizenship though, just not a cut in line like some of the conservative outlets are saying. Basically it will be much easier to get citizenship without having a criminal status.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Do I read that right that a 30 year old illegal immigrant who came to the US as a 25 year old could get a work visa? Seems like an arbitrary line in the sand with no specific rationale.

I understand the argument for a zero tolerance policy - deport everyone. I don't agree with it, but it's consistent. You can point to a simple principle and say: This.

I understand the argument for amnesty, visas, whatever, for those who came as kids or juveniles. Then there's a legal case for "Hey, I had no say in the matter. Blame my parents, but don't punish me".

And I understand the argument for saying "Screw it, amnesty for everyone, as long as they're not, y'know, axe murderers."

I don't get what principle this latest definition is based on. Anyone?

The latest principle is: BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLY TOGETHER, and illegals + spics are cut from the same cloth.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good.

Although it's a path to citizenship though, just not a cut in line like some of the conservative outlets are saying. Basically it will be much easier to get citizenship without having a criminal status.

Do you ever stop campaigning for Obama?