PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama makes election-year change in deportation policy


petegz28
06-15-2012, 03:28 PM
The Obama administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age.

The politically charged decision comes as Obama faces a tough reelection fight against Republican Mitt Romney, and Hispanic voters in swing states will play a crucial role in the contest.

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday.

In a Rose Garden statement, President Obama said the measure would “lift the shadow of deportation” from immigrants, some of who have made “extraordinary contributions” by “serving in our military and protecting our freedom.”

“That we would treat them as expendable makes no sense,” Obama said.

“They study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods ... they pledge allegiance to our flag, they are Americans in their hearts and minds ... and in every single way but one: on paper."

Obama was briefly interrupted by a reporter during his statement, a rare breach of protocol that caused the president to lose his temper.

"Excuse me sir, it's not time for questions, sir, not while I'm speaking," Obama said.

Later in his statement, Obama, pointing his finger at the reporter in front of the live TV cameras, said: "And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I prefer you to let me finish by statements before you ask a question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people. I didn't ask for an argument, I'm answering your question."

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

A memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordering the "prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children" argued that those covered by the order "only know this country as home." It said these people "lacked the intent to violate the law."

The new policy will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.

The policy change will accomplish portions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress amid Republican opposition.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232923-obama-makes-election-year-change-in-immigration-policy

petegz28
06-15-2012, 03:30 PM
So basically he is just eliminating what it means to be a citizen. You aren't a citizen but you can come here illegally, stay here illegally and work. But you're not a citizen.

Aside from the right to vote, what's really left?

cosmo20002
06-15-2012, 03:33 PM
So basically he is just eliminating what it means to be a citizen. You aren't a citizen but you can come here illegally, stay here illegally and work. But you're not a citizen.

Aside from the right to vote, what's really left?

Nothing really, so please set an example and leave.

Also, this deals with children who were brought here, but don't let little details get in the way.

petegz28
06-15-2012, 03:38 PM
Nothing really, so please set an example and leave.

Also, this deals with children who were brought here, but don't let little details get in the way.

A, this is a repost and to that I say, my bad

B, 30 years old is not a child...unless you're a Liberal

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 03:40 PM
A, this is a repost and to that I say, my bad

B, 30 years old is not a child...unless you're a Liberal

The guy you responded to is a liberal. There are about 800,000 new people that will be eligible to vote in a very short order.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2012, 04:02 PM
Maybe this will just be a wash from the dead folks votes in florida since they have the balls to protect the value of a vote

Otter
06-15-2012, 04:06 PM
Up to 1.4 million Unauthorized Immigrants Could Benefit from New Deportation Policy (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/06/15/up-to-1-4-million-unauthorized-immigrants-could-benefit-from-new-deportation-policy/)

cosmo20002
06-15-2012, 04:11 PM
A, this is a repost and to that I say, my bad

B, 30 years old is not a child...unless you're a Liberal

They were brought here as a child.

cosmo20002
06-15-2012, 04:12 PM
There are about 800,000 new people that will be eligible to vote in a very short order.

Doesn't grant citizenship, so not sure how that would work.

qabbaan
06-15-2012, 04:39 PM
Doesn't grant citizenship, so not sure how that would work.

Your buddies' policies against requiring any kind of voter ID and allowing same day registration with basically no proof of eligibility.

listopencil
06-15-2012, 04:41 PM
So basically he is just eliminating what it means to be a citizen. You aren't a citizen but you can come here illegally, stay here illegally and work. But you're not a citizen.

Aside from the right to vote, what's really left?

The system is broken. From my personal experience, these illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs from anyone. They are taking jobs that too many young Americans are too lazy to accept. They are taking jobs that most adult Americans appear to be too lazy to accept. I would like to see a simple system in place.

Allow immigrants 90 days after entry to find a job. When they find a job, they are issued legal resident alien cards and are legally allowed to remain in this country. This includes the ability to get a special driver's license that would allow them to operate vehicles as necessary pending driving tests both written and practical. These driver's licenses would not serve as forms of ID, only the legal resident alien ID card would do that. Proof of employment is required in the form of state and federal tax deductions taken from their checks. In the event of termination, they are allowed 90 days to find other employment and meet legal resident alien status.

Participation in social programs can be debated, the payroll taxes should offset some of the costs. They would have no rights to vote in any elections as they would not be citizens.

Deberg_1990
06-15-2012, 05:11 PM
Obama probably just won the election. Locked up the Hispanic swing vote.

RedNeckRaider
06-15-2012, 05:25 PM
Obama probably just won the election. Locked up the Hispanic swing vote.

He has had it for quite some time, nothing has changed. Both parties want them here. He is the first to openly play for their vote. The right has never done a damn thing to stop the migration. They talk all tough, but it was their hero Ronald Regan who stands as the only president who has given amnesty (to 300,000) illegals. Yet they are now pissed because a president from the left has won them over~

Deberg_1990
06-15-2012, 05:46 PM
On a side note, what a complete tool that reporter was. I hope they lose their white House credentials.

Uncalled for breach of protocol and completely disrespectful and rude.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 05:59 PM
On a side note, what a complete tool that reporter was. I hope they lose their white House credentials.

Uncalled for breach of protocol and completely disrespectful and rude.

That's just silly. There's no such protocol. When a president avoids questions like this one does, it's the duty of reporters to push questions on them rather than sitting back passively and waiting for crumbs offered by the white house spokesman. It won't surprise me if he loses his credentials though.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 06:16 PM
That's just silly. There's no such protocol. When a president avoids questions like this one does, it's the duty of reporters to push questions on them rather than sitting back passively and waiting for crumbs offered by the white house spokesman. It won't surprise me if he loses his credentials though.

It seems to me that he not only answered his question but was well on the way to doing that without being questioned before Conservative reporter Adam Teicher broke in.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 06:18 PM
It seems to me that he not only answered his question but was well on the way to doing that without being questioned before Conservative reporter Adam Teicher broke in.

What was the question?

patteeu
06-15-2012, 06:34 PM
What was the question?

Well? I can see that you're viewing this thread. I assume you know what the question was based on your previous post.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 06:36 PM
And now you're replying. The suspense is killing me.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 06:37 PM
Well?

The question, as you well know, was a loaded one. Asking why do you favor foreign workers over American workers.

Nobody would answer such a loaded question, because it's not true, however he did tell him why he was doing what he was doing.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 06:37 PM
Well? I can see that you're viewing this thread. I assume you know what the question was based on your previous post.

Jesus, Patteeu, I just got off work and had to take a shit. Calm down there sport.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 06:40 PM
The question, as you well know, was a loaded one. Asking why do you favor foreign workers over American workers.

Nobody would answer such a loaded question, because it's not true, however he did tell him why he was doing what he was doing.

Is that a quote?

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 06:42 PM
Is that a quote?

The question he asked is a quote.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 06:44 PM
And do you really think Obama was really both "well on his way to answering" that question and then, in fact, answered it? What was his answer?

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 06:46 PM
And do you really think Obama was really both "well on his way to answering" that question and then, in fact, answered it? What was his answer?

He was answering as to why he is doing what he is doing. Which essentially was the question minus the gop "you hate america" message. Yes he was well on his way to answering that question.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 07:00 PM
He was answering as to why he is doing what he is doing. Which essentially was the question minus the gop "you hate america" message. Yes he was well on his way to answering that question.

So he answered a different question. I don't blame him for refusing to answer that question, but let's not pretend that he was doing so.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 07:14 PM
So he answered a different question. I don't blame him for refusing to answer that question, but let's not pretend that he was doing so.

At least he didn't respond by saying, "Munroe, do you still beat your wife?"

Point is the question was more of a statement made to put him on the defensive, knowing full well he wasn't going to answer questions. He was stating his policy changes and the reason for it (and no I'm not an idiot, I know it's an election year) when a reporter from a conservative site chimed in.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 07:19 PM
At least he didn't respond by saying, "Munroe, do you still beat your wife?"

Point is the question was more of a statement made to put him on the defensive, knowing full well he wasn't going to answer questions. He was stating his policy changes and the reason for it (and no I'm not an idiot, I know it's an election year) when a reporter from a conservative site chimed in.

I agree with you that the question was loaded. My main objection to your original statement was the way you pretended that Obama was forthcoming with an answer to that or any reporter question. He wasn't and has regularly been resistant to answering even the most valid questions.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 07:23 PM
I agree with you that the question was loaded. My main objection to your original statement was the way you pretended that Obama was forthcoming with an answer to that or any reporter question. He wasn't and has regularly been resistant to answering even the most valid questions.

Perhaps I should have stated it differently. I should have stated that he avoided a loaded question while he was well on his way to explaining the reasoning behind his actions.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 07:33 PM
Perhaps I should have stated it differently. I should have stated that he avoided a loaded question while he was well on his way to explaining the reasoning behind his actions.

There's a difference between a politician's prepared statement and answering legitimate questions from reporters. That concept is still lost in your revised statement.

qabbaan
06-15-2012, 08:09 PM
The only reasoning here is that this is a rollout of a campaign of actions designed to shore up his support among groups where it's vulnerable due to his Jimmy Carter-like term

This is a preemptive to the possibility of a Rubio selection.

His support among gays was sagging, and enflamed or rushed on by Biden, hence his flip on gay marriage.

Speculation is that he will come out in favor of marijuana legalization before the election, to shore up support among the college crowd.

I expect there will be some token concession for blacks and union voters, Jews, etc. we can probably expect him to start showing up at church to be photographed too.

We all know what his campaign promises are worth from last time around, anyway - about as much his expiration-dated positions on the issues. The only thing we can be sure he truly believes in at this point is his campaign.

Otter
06-15-2012, 08:24 PM
Obama probably just won the election. Locked up the Hispanic swing vote.

What do you think the 20 million under-employed and unemployed legal voters think of this move?

mlyonsd
06-15-2012, 08:55 PM
What do you think the 20 million under-employed and unemployed legal voters think of this move?Our King has spoken. Zip it and get in line.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 09:11 PM
There's a difference between a politician's prepared statement and answering legitimate questions from reporters. That concept is still lost in your revised statement.

We obviously have a difference of opinion in what constitutes a legitimate question. That was not a legitimate question.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 09:21 PM
We obviously have a difference of opinion in what constitutes a legitimate question. That was not a legitimate question.

I'm not talking about the question. As I already said, I agree with you about *that* question. I *don't* agree with the implication of your statement that a quick Obama statement in the Rose Garden with his focus-group-developed explanation for the rationale behind his actions is an adequate substitute for taking and answering legitimate questions from reporters. Something he's proven that he's very disinclined to do.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2012, 09:36 PM
What do you think the 20 million under-employed and unemployed legal voters think of this move?

They are probably Romneyites so its orrelevant. Mexicrats are democrats and this is the assumtion by Obama, its all about votes

petegz28
06-16-2012, 11:02 AM
This was more than obvious ...it was a political stunt. Obama is hurting in the polls as far as the encumbent role goes. He pissed off everyone last week with his "the private sector is fine" comment and now is looking elsewhere for a quick hitter to help secure a part of his base. This will in and of itself come back to bite him as well with the swing voters which he is already losing.

Otter
06-16-2012, 12:35 PM
This was more than obvious ...it was a political stunt. Obama is hurting in the polls as far as the encumbent role goes. He pissed off everyone last week with his "the private sector is fine" comment and now is looking elsewhere for a quick hitter to help secure a part of his base. This will in and of itself come back to bite him as well with the swing voters which he is already losing.

That's what I'm thinking as well. There's 20 million estimated unemployed and underemployed Americans. This is a slap in the face them as well as every legal immigrant. I see this hurting him much more than helping. Which as well it should.

This was a pure slime move.

LiveSteam
06-16-2012, 01:40 PM
They the Mexicans come in & drive the pay scale so far down that no American journeyman will work for that wage. Thats not lazy.

headsnap
06-16-2012, 08:22 PM
That's what I'm thinking as well. There's 20 million estimated unemployed and underemployed Americans. This is a slap in the face them as well as every legal immigrant. I see this hurting him much more than helping. Which as well it should.

This was a pure slime move.

yup... US unemployment is high, lets let the Mexicans keep their American jobs... YAY!!!

headsnap
06-16-2012, 08:24 PM
its all about votes

and keeping Fast and Furious and the economy off the front page...

BigChiefFan
06-16-2012, 08:38 PM
I love selective enforcement of laws. What a bunch crooks.

chiefzilla1501
06-17-2012, 06:57 AM
That's what I'm thinking as well. There's 20 million estimated unemployed and underemployed Americans. This is a slap in the face them as well as every legal immigrant. I see this hurting him much more than helping. Which as well it should.

This was a pure slime move.

It depends on how Romney positions this. This could be one of those issues where Romney bites the bullet and realizes that he's not going to win over the hispanic vote. Until he does that, he's not going to touch the immigration issue. Then again, he can still argue that Obama is abusing his power.

DJJasonp
06-17-2012, 08:50 AM
On a side note, what a complete tool that reporter was. I hope they lose their white House credentials.

Uncalled for breach of protocol and completely disrespectful and rude.


Yes....let's all shut up and bow down to the king.

The reporter was interviewed and stated that he thought Obama was done - it's completely normal for the press to shout questions in that 1-2 seconds it takes for the president to turn and walk away from the podium.

big-time kudos to the man for having the balls to ask it....and even more, having the balls to call out the msm, upon being interviewed by them, "I have to ask the questions you people wont".

I say Fu** protocol.....all of our government "leaders" need to be taken to task for their actions.

For far too long, the msm (owned by the same people in bed with the politicians) have not represented the people.

They work for us, remember?

Saulbadguy
06-18-2012, 06:55 AM
yup... US unemployment is high, lets let the Mexicans keep their American jobs... YAY!!!

I thought unemployed people were just lazy?

The Rick
06-18-2012, 10:37 AM
So Obama is basically thumbing his nose at the oath he took to uphold the laws of our Constitution?

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 11:23 AM
So Obama is basically thumbing his nose at the oath he took to uphold the laws of our Constitution?

No, it is a matter fully within the discretion of DHS to decide how to allocate work permits and to decide which deportation cases to prioritize. They are choosing not to allocate resources to deport people brought here as children (along with the other factors).

vailpass
06-18-2012, 12:15 PM
No, it is a matter fully within the discretion of DHS to decide how to allocate work permits and to decide which deportation cases to prioritize. They are choosing not to allocate resources to deport people brought here as children (along with the other factors).

LMAO

Chief Faithful
06-18-2012, 12:25 PM
I'm glad for this policy change, but it is too bad he did not have the leadership skills to make this happen through Congress.

BigChiefFan
06-18-2012, 12:35 PM
Sheriff Joe didn't get the memo...

http://www.businessinsider.com/sheriff-joe-arrests-six-year-old-girl-suspected-illegal-immigration-obama-2012-6

fan4ever
06-18-2012, 01:00 PM
Obama:

"I'm gonna change my stance on gay marriage. What's that? The people who support gay marriage already vote for me? OK, I'm gonna change immigration policy. What's that? People who support the Dream Act already vote for me? Explain to me how this is supposed to work again, will ya?"

patteeu
06-18-2012, 01:08 PM
Obama:

"I'm gonna change my stance on gay marriage. What's that? The people who support gay marriage already vote for me? OK, I'm gonna change immigration policy. What's that? People who support the Dream Act already vote for me? Explain to me how this is supposed to work again, will ya?"

"Disrespectful" reporter: President Obama, sir, what's your plan for the economy?

Obama: Well, uh, my position on gay marriage has evolved, and, uh, I've decided to grant amnesty to young illegals without Congressional approval even though I once said I couldn't do it. Next question.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 01:26 PM
"Obama: Well, uh, my position on gay marriage has evolved, and, uh, I've decided to grant amnesty to young illegals without Congressional approval even though I once said I couldn't do it. Next question.



You join the ranks of Iz and shrink when you say stuff like that.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 01:32 PM
Obama:

"I'm gonna change my stance on gay marriage. What's that? The people who support gay marriage already vote for me? OK, I'm gonna change immigration policy. What's that? People who support the Dream Act already vote for me? Explain to me how this is supposed to work again, will ya?"

So, what you are saying is that he did the right thing, and he did so despite no real political advantage to him since he would be getting those votes anyway.

patteeu
06-18-2012, 01:53 PM
You join the ranks of Iz and shrink when you say stuff like that.

I don't know what ranks I'm in, but what is it that you disagree with in that post?

mlyonsd
06-18-2012, 02:05 PM
You join the ranks of Iz and shrink when you say stuff like that.WTF would you call it?

Otter
06-18-2012, 02:09 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TfZ3kaKZoIw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lying piece of shit

stevieray
06-18-2012, 02:19 PM
I don't know what ranks I'm in,

...it's that same tired high school bs.

Chiefshrink
06-18-2012, 02:33 PM
You join the ranks of Iz and shrink when you say stuff like that.

yeah patt, heaven forbid you begin to bang the drum for the truth just as loud as us so-called LOONS:rolleyes: because then you will fall out of favor with the "Statists" in this forum and they can't handle anymore 'truth' but there is more to come.:thumb:

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 02:39 PM
I don't know what ranks I'm in, but what is it that you disagree with in that post?

I had highlighted the worst part: "I've decided to grant amnesty to young illegals"

vailpass
06-18-2012, 02:44 PM
I had highlighted the worst part: "I've decided to grant amnesty to young illegals"

Neg repped for stupidity either genuine or feigned.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 02:47 PM
WTF would you call it?

I'd call it not amnesty because it does not meet the definition of the word.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 02:50 PM
Neg repped for stupidity either genuine or feigned.

Now that's gonna sting. You apparently don't know the definition of common words. Is that genuine or feigned?

vailpass
06-18-2012, 02:52 PM
Now that's gonna sting. You apparently don't know the definition of common words. Is that genuine or feigned?

The meaning of the word "amnesty" in that statement was contextually crystal clear.
You either knew what was meant but chose to act otherwise in your blind defense of obama or you did not know what it meant despite the clarity of the statement.
Both routes leave you at stupid.

Chiefshrink
06-18-2012, 02:54 PM
I'd call it not amnesty because it does not meet the definition of the word.

Would you call it breaking the law(against "We The People) and shitting all over the Constitution under the guise of "Executive order" all for political purposes because their internal polls (that we don't see) show that even "O" is starting to lose some of the Lation vote, when a year earlier he said he couldn't do anything? Sorry for the run on question.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 03:06 PM
The meaning of the word "amnesty" in that statement was contextually crystal clear.
You either knew what was meant but chose to act otherwise in your blind defense of obama or you did not know what it meant despite the clarity of the statement.
Both routes leave you at stupid.

Yeah, I know what was meant--that amnesty has been granted. If that's not what was meant, the word "amnesty" shouldn't have been used. No one was given amnesty, so if someone misuses the word, that is their problem.

So, is your current moron act genuine or feigned?

patteeu
06-18-2012, 03:08 PM
I had highlighted the worst part: "I've decided to grant amnesty to young illegals"

I'd call it not amnesty because it does not meet the definition of the word.

Sure it does. Maybe you should look the word up.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 03:15 PM
Would you call it breaking the law(against "We The People) and shitting all over the Constitution under the guise of "Executive order" all for political purposes because their internal polls (that we don't see) show that even "O" is starting to lose some of the Lation vote, when a year earlier he said he couldn't do anything? Sorry for the run on question.

Did this even actually involve an Executive Order?

Anyway, there's nothing unconstitutional whatsoever. Its well within the discretion of the DHS.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 03:17 PM
Sure it does. Maybe you should look the word up.

I did, just to be sure. Not anmesty. Clearly not.

patteeu
06-18-2012, 03:20 PM
I did, just to be sure. Not anmesty. Clearly not.

You must be using an abridged dictionary. Or maybe someone tore a page out of it. Try dictionary.com.

vailpass
06-18-2012, 03:27 PM
Yeah, I know what was meant--that amnesty has been granted. If that's not what was meant, the word "amnesty" shouldn't have been used. No one was given amnesty, so if someone misuses the word, that is their problem.

So, is your current moron act genuine or feigned?

Not only are you incorrect you are willfully obtuse. Are you an asshole because most people dislike you, or do most people dislike you because you are an asshole?

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 03:37 PM
You must be using an abridged dictionary. Or maybe someone tore a page out of it. Try dictionary.com.

I'm not sure that dictionary.com is exactly the standard, but no, still not amnesty.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 03:40 PM
Not only are you incorrect you are willfully obtuse. Are you an asshole because most people dislike you, or do most people dislike you because you are an asshole?

I know what the word amnesy means, and the DHS decision ain't that.

Surely you know how your other comments must sting. You're a hateful closeted bigot who might be semi-retarded. I'm not completely sure on the last part because I'm keeping open the possibility you are about 11 years old.

vailpass
06-18-2012, 03:44 PM
I know what the word amnesy means, and the DHS decision ain't that.

Surely you know how your other comments must sting. You're a hateful closeted bigot who might be semi-retarded. I'm not completely sure on the last part because I'm keeping open the possibility you are about 11 years old.

Coming from the most blatant bigot this board has seen in a while I'll take that as it an "it takes one to know one" nod.
Of course, my bigot team whips the shit out of your bigot team every time, amirite?

patteeu
06-18-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure that dictionary.com is exactly the standard, but no, still not amnesty.

You're incorrect. Perhaps the problem is you and not your dictionary. The fact that the President's policy is one of overlooking a past offense (being in the country illegally) and making these guys legal makes it amnesty by definition.

mlyonsd
06-18-2012, 04:44 PM
I'd call it not amnesty because it does not meet the definition of the word.Yeah maybe not for you and the DHS goon in charge but to everyone else in the country we get it.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 04:50 PM
You're incorrect. Perhaps the problem is you and not your dictionary. The fact that the President's policy is one of overlooking a past offense (being in the country illegally) and making these guys legal makes it amnesty by definition.

They haven't been made legal and could still be deported.

patteeu
06-18-2012, 05:20 PM
They haven't been made legal and could still be deported.

The semantic argument about whether their current status is legal or not is not a part of the definition of amnesty so I won't even bother to address it. They can't be deported unless they violate the terms of their amnesty or unless the President decides to terminate his amnesty policy.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 06:06 PM
OK, it's ridiculous to claim it isn't amnesty. It is TEMPORARY, DE FACTO amnesty, but amnesty nonetheless.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:06 PM
The semantic argument about whether their current status is legal or not is not a part of the definition of amnesty so I won't even bother to address it. They can't be deported unless they violate the terms of their amnesty or unless the President decides to terminate his amnesty policy.

OK, you've just ended the argument, to the extent there was one, because this really isn't even a close call. If amnesty is bestowed, it can't be taken away. If it can, it is not amnesty.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:08 PM
OK, it's ridiculous to claim it isn't amnesty. It is TEMPORARY, DE FACTO amnesty, but amnesty nonetheless.

Yeah, except that it is not. Unless you change the meaning of the word, which apparently many of you are willing to do in order to make this seem more dramatic than it actually is.

patteeu
06-18-2012, 07:16 PM
OK, you've just ended the argument, to the extent there was one, because this really isn't even a close call. If amnesty is bestowed, it can't be taken away. If it can, it is not amnesty.

Wrong. The offense that we're talking about is presence in the USA without official permission. The amnesty that these people are receiving are for their past offenses, i.e. their presence from the time they arrived here illegally until the time they receive their work permit from President Amnesty. If they violate the terms of that permit or if the President reverses his policy, they will again become illegal and deportable, but that will be because of their new status, not because of the illegal years they spent here in the past.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:43 PM
Wrong. The offense that we're talking about is presence in the USA without official permission. The amnesty that these people are receiving are for their past offenses, i.e. their presence from the time they arrived here illegally until the time they receive their work permit from President Amnesty.

If they violate the terms of that permit or if the President reverses his policy, they will again become illegal and deportable, but that will be because of their new status, not because of the illegal years they spent here in the past.

So, they would be being deported for their new status as illegal but not for their prior status as illegal? That makes no sense and is worse than some of Iz and shrink's arguments, considering that even under your weird argument, they could be made illegal again at any time.

If it can be reversed, its not amnesty.

patteeu
06-18-2012, 08:30 PM
So, they would be being deported for their new status as illegal but not for their prior status as illegal? That makes no sense and is worse than some of Iz and shrink's arguments, considering that even under your weird argument, they could be made illegal again at any time.

If it can be reversed, its not amnesty.

OK, I'm done arguing now. Anyone who knows what amnesty means or who bothers to look the word up will know that your arguments don't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 08:38 PM
So, they would be being deported for their new status as illegal but not for their prior status as illegal? That makes no sense and is worse than some of Iz and shrink's arguments, considering that even under your weird argument, they could be made illegal again at any time.

If it can be reversed, its not amnesty.

That is not at all true. You are simply making up a definition for amnesty now. NOTHING in the definition explicitly lays out permanence. I will agree that unless otherwise stated.. it is generally assumed to be permanent... but that is assumption not definition.

Want to settle this right now? Can amnesty be revoked? Or if you equate amnesty with the word "pardon".. can a pardon be revoked? The answer is YES in both cases. Therefore, it is not PERMANENT by definition... instead it is a condition or state. In THIS case it is clearly TEMPORARY.. and any time we refer to Obama giving amnesty, we should be clear and say TEMPORARY (or conditional or de facto) amnesty if we want to be precise.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 09:14 PM
That is not at all true. You are simply making up a definition for amnesty now. NOTHING in the definition explicitly lays out permanence. I will agree that unless otherwise stated.. it is generally assumed to be permanent... but that is assumption not definition.

Want to settle this right now? Can amnesty be revoked? Or if you equate amnesty with the word "pardon".. can a pardon be revoked? The answer is YES in both cases. Therefore, it is not PERMANENT by definition... instead it is a condition or state. In THIS case it is clearly TEMPORARY.. and any time we refer to Obama giving amnesty, we should be clear and say TEMPORARY (or conditional or de facto) amnesty if we want to be precise.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. In fact, amnesty goes farther than a pardon. A pardon cancels the punishment for a crime. Amnesty treats the person as if the crime never even ocurred.

Temporary amnesty makes no sense if you mean amnesty that can be revoked later after it has been granted. Usually that term is used, for example, if the city is trying to get people to pay unpaid traffic tickets. They might offer a 'temporary amnesty' where if you pay the past-due fine by a certain date, you will receive amnesty on any additional penalties incurred by not originally paying on time. The "temporary" applies to the time available for claiming it, not to the nature of the amnesty itself or that the amnesty, once granted to someone, could be reversed and the person would suddenly be subject to penalty again.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 09:47 PM
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. In fact, amnesty goes farther than a pardon. A pardon cancels the punishment for a crime. Amnesty treats the person as if the crime never even ocurred.

Temporary amnesty makes no sense if you mean amnesty that can be revoked later after it has been granted. Usually that term is used, for example, if the city is trying to get people to pay unpaid traffic tickets. They might offer a 'temporary amnesty' where if you pay the past-due fine by a certain date, you will receive amnesty on any additional penalties incurred by not originally paying on time. The "temporary" applies to the time available for claiming it, not to the nature of the amnesty itself or that the amnesty, once granted to someone, could be reversed and the person would suddenly be subject to penalty again.

Speaking of immigration.. is English your first language? :D

Chiefshrink
06-18-2012, 10:22 PM
Catch, Release, Vote !

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 10:25 PM
Speaking of immigration.. is English your first language? :D

Is there some reason you would ask? I'm not sure what you're implying, but you're the one who apparently doesn't know how to use a dictionary.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 10:28 PM
Catch, Release, Vote !

Patteeu--you see what you encourage with your clearly incorrect arguments? You call it amnesty and people like shrink think it means they can now vote.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 10:47 PM
Is there some reason you would ask? I'm not sure what you're implying, but you're the one who apparently doesn't know how to use a dictionary.

Please explain to me which of these definitions denotes permanence?

1. a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

2.Law . an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.

3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

I can definitely see the CONNOTATION but none of them explicitly state that amnesty is a permanent condition.

As I have stated before... calling it AMNESTY without saying it is temporary is just as misleading as you saying it definitely isn't ANY FORM of amnesty.

It's being called "administrative relief" which is exactly the same as saying (for now) we will "overlook your past illegal status".. which is an offense last I checked under US law.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 11:33 PM
Please explain to me which of these definitions denotes permanence?



I can definitely see the CONNOTATION but none of them explicitly state that amnesty is a permanent condition.

As I have stated before... calling it AMNESTY without saying it is temporary is just as misleading as you saying it definitely isn't ANY FORM of amnesty.

It's being called "administrative relief" which is exactly the same as saying (for now) we will "overlook your past illegal status".. which is an offense last I checked under US law.

I've pretty much reached the limit on caring whether or not I convince you. This is a ridiculous argument that comes down to that you and Patteeu would really, really like to be able to use the word "amnesty" because it would make this seem like a more radical action.

So you're looking at a very generic definition and although you believe there is a connotation of it, you don't see the word "permanent." You really think it is vital to see the word "permanent?" Look up "dead." Probably says "not alive." Does it really have to say "permanently not alive"?

Even your generic definition uses the terms "pardon," "forgive," "forgetting." Literally, these are permanent. If you forgive someone, that's it--they are forgiven. If you "take it back" you didn't really ever forgive them in the first place.

Amnesty forgives and forgets the past action--legally, it is erased, like it never happened. You admit the action by the DHS is temporary. But you can't temporarily erase something. Once erased, it is gone. That's why this isn't amnesty. Nothing has been erased. Their illegal status is still there.

For further information, please consult a legal dictionary or website that deals with legal terms and concepts.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 11:45 PM
I've pretty much reached the limit on caring whether or not I convince you. This is a ridiculous argument that comes down to that you and Patteeu would really, really like to be able to use the word "amnesty" because it would make this seem like a more radical action.

So you're looking at a very generic definition and although you believe there is a connotation of it, you don't see the word "permanent." You really think it is vital to see the word "permanent?" Look up "dead." Probably says "not alive." Does it really have to say "permanently not alive"?

Even your generic definition uses the terms "pardon," "forgive," "forgetting." Literally, these are permanent. If you forgive someone, that's it--they are forgiven. If you "take it back" you didn't really ever forgive them in the first place.

Amnesty forgives and forgets the past action--legally, it is erased, like it never happened. You admit the action by the DHS is temporary. But you can't temporarily erase something. Once erased, it is gone. That's why this isn't amnesty. Nothing has been erased. Their illegal status is still there.

For further information, please consult a legal dictionary or website that deals with legal terms and concepts.

If you ever followed ANYTHING I have debated in the past, you will know that I care more about accuracy then anything else. In this case, you are simply wrong. BUT I agree that just flat out calling it amnesty is wrong as well since it misleads people as to what is really happening.

Let's leave the amnesty argument off the table.. it isn't important .. even if you don't understand the word. :D

You seem to think I am ANTI immigrant... that isn't at all the case. I have fairly radical views on immigration policy... I'm all for fixing our broken system. As I stated in the other thread on this topic... what Obama has done is disingenuous and sets immigration reform BACK not forward.

I'm hard pressed to find another move by Obama as clearly ethically wrong as this. It's borderline evil in it's Machiavellianism. If he gave one ounce about immigrants he would have done something 3 years ago. this was a douchebag move by his administration.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 12:00 AM
You seem to think I am ANTI immigrant... that isn't at all the case. I have fairly radical views on immigration policy... I'm all for fixing our broken system. As I stated in the other thread on this topic... what Obama has done is disingenuous and sets immigration reform BACK not forward.

I didn't think you were anti-immigrant. I assumed the insistence to use the inaccurate and more inflammatory term "amnesty" was due to being anti-Obama.


I'm hard pressed to find another move by Obama as clearly ethically wrong as this. It's borderline evil in it's Machiavellianism. If he gave one ounce about immigrants he would have done something 3 years ago. this was a douchebag move by his administration.

Delaying administration of punishment for people who did not do anything wrong themselves (an adult brought them here as children) is ethically wrong? You really have a screwed sense of morality and ethics. This is about as ethically right as you can get. He's a douchebag for doing it now, but 3 years ago would have been ok?

BigChiefFan
06-19-2012, 12:04 AM
Jesus H.

They are fucking ILLEGALS and our president is allowing it to happen.

What's wrong with this picture?

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 12:07 AM
Delaying administration of punishment for people who did not do anything wrong themselves (an adult brought them here as children) is ethically wrong? You really have a screwed sense of morality and ethics. This is about as ethically right as you can get. He's a douchebag for doing it now, but 3 years ago would have been ok?

He's a douchebag and it's morally wrong to USE immigrants for political gain when you OBVIOUSLY don't give two shits about them. To hold out some temporary, half-assed "fix" simply to get votes... knowing full well that it sets back immigration reform and likely will go away as soon as the next President takes office.

I don't understand how anyone can defend this vile move.

patteeu
06-19-2012, 06:00 AM
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. In fact, amnesty goes farther than a pardon. A pardon cancels the punishment for a crime. Amnesty treats the person as if the crime never even ocurred.

Temporary amnesty makes no sense if you mean amnesty that can be revoked later after it has been granted. Usually that term is used, for example, if the city is trying to get people to pay unpaid traffic tickets. They might offer a 'temporary amnesty' where if you pay the past-due fine by a certain date, you will receive amnesty on any additional penalties incurred by not originally paying on time. The "temporary" applies to the time available for claiming it, not to the nature of the amnesty itself or that the amnesty, once granted to someone, could be reversed and the person would suddenly be subject to penalty again.

My local library used to have an occasional amnesty for over-due books where the fines were forgiven if you returned the books. However, going forward, if you checked another book out and failed to return it in time, you were still subject to a fine. New offense, new punishment. Just like in this situation.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 10:15 AM
My local library used to have an occasional amnesty for over-due books where the fines were forgiven if you returned the books. However, going forward, if you checked another book out and failed to return it in time, you were still subject to a fine. New offense, new punishment. Just like in this situation.

When your library had an amensty for the overdue books, your "crime" of not returning the book on time was erased/forgiven/forgotten if you returned the book. Could they later go back and charge you the fine? No, because they gave you amnesty for your past crime.

In our immigration situation, the past crime of illegal entry is not erased/forgiven/forgotten. They are still subject to punishment for it. DHS has simply chosen to temporarily stop pursuing punishment on people meeting certain criteria (being brought here as a child, and some other factors) to prioritize more blatant and serious issues.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 10:25 AM
He's a douchebag and it's morally wrong to USE immigrants for political gain when you OBVIOUSLY don't give two shits about them. To hold out some temporary, half-assed "fix" simply to get votes... knowing full well that it sets back immigration reform and likely will go away as soon as the next President takes office.

I don't understand how anyone can defend this vile move.

I have no idea where you get that he "obviously" doesn't care about them. And if the next president in 4 years wants to change the policy, that's up to him. But in the event Mitt becomes pres in January, he stammered his way around the issue but left the impression that he would not revoke it.

People can defend this "vile" move because it is fair. We tend to have a principle here of not punishing people for things out of their control. Those people who were brought here as kids didn't set out to do anything wrong. Meanwhile, they have established a life here and been good people. And you think it is vile not to return them to a country they have never really known, where they may not have even been since they were a young child. They might not even speak Spanish or know anyone there. But its vile to not ship them out. You have a very odd view of things.

BWillie
06-19-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm all for no deportation and allowing amnesty if the minimum wage is abolished

patteeu
06-19-2012, 11:15 AM
When your library had an amensty for the overdue books, your "crime" of not returning the book on time was erased/forgiven/forgotten if you returned the book. Could they later go back and charge you the fine? No, because they gave you amnesty for your past crime.

In our immigration situation, the past crime of illegal entry is not erased/forgiven/forgotten. They are still subject to punishment for it. DHS has simply chosen to temporarily stop pursuing punishment on people meeting certain criteria (being brought here as a child, and some other factors) to prioritize more blatant and serious issues.

First of all, since you're trying (but failing) to be lawyerly with words, legal entry is not a crime. We are talking about civil offenses, not criminal ones.

Second, the discrete event of entry is not what would subject them to future deportation if Obama's policy is revoked. It's the ongoing illegal presence.

vailpass
06-19-2012, 12:19 PM
When your library had an amensty for the overdue books, your "crime" of not returning the book on time was erased/forgiven/forgotten if you returned the book. Could they later go back and charge you the fine? No, because they gave you amnesty for your past crime.

In our immigration situation, the past crime of illegal entry is not erased/forgiven/forgotten. They are still subject to punishment for it. DHS has simply chosen to temporarily stop pursuing punishment on people meeting certain criteria (being brought here as a child, and some other factors) to prioritize more blatant and serious issues.

LMAO at the fail

BigChiefFan
06-19-2012, 12:44 PM
I have no idea where you get that he "obviously" doesn't care about them. And if the next president in 4 years wants to change the policy, that's up to him. But in the event Mitt becomes pres in January, he stammered his way around the issue but left the impression that he would not revoke it.

People can defend this "vile" move because it is fair. We tend to have a principle here of not punishing people for things out of their control. Those people who were brought here as kids didn't set out to do anything wrong. Meanwhile, they have established a life here and been good people. And you think it is vile not to return them to a country they have never really known, where they may not have even been since they were a young child. They might not even speak Spanish or know anyone there. But its vile to not ship them out. You have a very odd view of things.

Yeah, let's cut veterans pension plans and allow illegals to sponge off the system. :rolleyes:


No wonder this country is sinking because of imbeciles like you, who can't even see the forest through the trees, JUSTIFYING ILLEGAL behavior and then treating them as better than taxpayers. Fuck you.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 12:56 PM
Yeah, let's cut veterans pension plans and allow illegals to sponge off the system. :rolleyes:


No wonder this country is sinking because of imbeciles like you, who can't even see the forest through the trees, JUSTIFYING ILLEGAL behavior and then treating them as better than taxpayers. **** you.

Rantings of a lunatic. Pure gibberish. You sound like a complete moron.

BigChiefFan
06-19-2012, 12:59 PM
Rantings of a lunatic. Pure gibberish. You sound like a complete moron.

I'm just sick of idiots like you justifying ILLEGAL behavior, while our country goes down the tubes.

Seeing your comments, I'll take that as a compliment, because no way in Hell would I want side with your flawed logic and dementia-laden horseshit.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 01:23 PM
I'm just sick of idiots like you justifying ILLEGAL behavior, while our country goes down the tubes.



Throw the book at those people who made the mistake of letting an adult take them across the border when they were a child!

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 04:59 PM
I have no idea where you get that he "obviously" doesn't care about them. And if the next president in 4 years wants to change the policy, that's up to him. But in the event Mitt becomes pres in January, he stammered his way around the issue but left the impression that he would not revoke it.

People can defend this "vile" move because it is fair. We tend to have a principle here of not punishing people for things out of their control. Those people who were brought here as kids didn't set out to do anything wrong. Meanwhile, they have established a life here and been good people. And you think it is vile not to return them to a country they have never really known, where they may not have even been since they were a young child. They might not even speak Spanish or know anyone there. But its vile to not ship them out. You have a very odd view of things.

Wow, you seem to have read my post yet you still can't process it. Seriously, is English your first language? Your reading comprehension skills are just abysmal.

Try again and see if you can post a reply that comes CLOSE to addressing what I said.

Anyone want to help him out on this? He obviously needs a boost.

chiefzilla1501
06-19-2012, 09:10 PM
Throw the book at those people who made the mistake of letting an adult take them across the border when they were a child!

It doesn't change the fact that they got over $100,000 of education that other people paid for, and they get a free pass into the country because they were on good behavior.

I'm all for amnesty. Make these guy pay taxes like the rest of us. But fuck the ridiculous mentality that they've earned their citizenship. There needs to be some kind of heavy penalty attached to it too.

And again, I don't understand why these guys get preferential treatment from stealing taxpayer money on the school system while an immigrant who pays legitimate tuition and works his or her ass off in college doesn't fulfill the 5 year requirement and gets booted out. I don't understand why they get preferential treatment over a Liberian in a war-torn country who is waiting in line patiently to rejoin their son in America.