Immigration Reform - exclusive Order

[AshlynCreamher]

How does this make you feel?

[LI SEAN08]

I don't know..... how about more Latina Trannys running loose In NY for us horny chasers??

[trish]

Sounded more inclusive than exclusive.

[Ben in LA]

I have no problems with it. Someone will though.

[Stavros]

The caption from today's New York Times reads:
In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the so-called “amnesty” law passed by Congress that granted legal status to three million undocumented immigrants

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/21/us/PRECEDENT/PRECEDENT-largeHorizontal375-v2.jpg

[Odelay]

I have no problems with it. Someone will though.
Holy shit Ben, love the new avatar. A woman who has a thing for black guys and black guy who... I guess has a "thing" for white girls.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/customavatars/avatar119804_110.gif

[fred41]

The caption from today's New York Times reads:
In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the so-called “amnesty” law passed by Congress that granted legal status to three million undocumented immigrants

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/21/us/PRECEDENT/PRECEDENT-largeHorizontal375-v2.jpg

I don't have a problem with what President Obama did...but I don't understand the comparison. Ronald Reagan acted in concert with congress, whereas President Obama didn't....but maybe I missed something.

[Stavros]

I don't have a problem with what President Obama did...but I don't understand the comparison. Ronald Reagan acted in concert with congress, whereas President Obama didn't....but maybe I missed something.

I understand this to be one of the points of the article, although it does also point out that after Reagan signed the bill sent from Congress, he
acted on his own the following year to expand it to about 100,000 more.

It is an old issue in American politics of how much a President can do without the approval of Congress, how it plays on this issue I do not know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/politics/obamas-immigration-decision-has-precedents-but-may-set-a-new-one.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

[fred41]

I understand this to be one of the points of the article, although it does also point out that after Reagan signed the bill sent from Congress, he
acted on his own the following year to expand it to about 100,000 more.

It is an old issue in American politics of how much a President can do without the approval of Congress, how it plays on this issue I do not know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/politics/obamas-immigration-decision-has-precedents-but-may-set-a-new-one.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

You're right...though I think , to some extent, the numbers probably make a difference. I also think, regardless of where a person stands on the legal issue - which is usually more complex than 'right' or 'wrong' - it was a pretty smart political play by President Obama...he now forces the Republican Party to make the next move, and let's face it, from a historical perspective covering the last two or three years - they have tended to bungle these type of situations. It's sad, because they have a chance here to come out ahead by simply crafting a bill that the average, moderate American can get behind, without alienating, or perhaps, even better, actually gaining many Latino voters...
...if they can craft such a bill, it's a win if it passes...or even if it doesn't - as long as it only gets shot down by poison pill amendments from the Democratic Party, and not from within their own.

[martin48]

.....

[bobvela]

.....

Remind me... did the Emancipation Proclamation apply to the federal territories? Or states still in the union? Or parts of southern states under union control?

Nope! It applied only to those states in rebellion.

Did you forget that Lincoln didn't think he had the authority to simply free slaves in all of the several states... so pushed for what became the 13th amendment?

Shame you don't quite have your facts straight with regards to what happened then or now.

[trish]

You're saying a few temporary measures to ease the suffering of tax paying undocumented workers and their children (until Congress finally gets it together to pass a bill) is way more radical than the Emancipation Proclamation? If it weren't for boehner's foot-dragging insistance on instituting the Hastard Rule this'd be done already.

[trish]

The Hastert Rule is of course, the informal declaration that nothing in Congress shall be brought to a vote unless there are enough Republican votes to pass it without any help from the Democrats. The rule essentially declares that the Democrats shall have no votes in Congress, that the Repuplican Party shall Go It Alone. It's ironic now to hear the Republicans complaining that "the President's going it alone."

[martin48]

Shame on me! Sorry it's your fucked up country and not mine



Remind me... did the Emancipation Proclamation apply to the federal territories? Or states still in the union? Or parts of southern states under union control?

Nope! It applied only to those states in rebellion.

Did you forget that Lincoln didn't think he had the authority to simply free slaves in all of the several states... so pushed for what became the 13th amendment?

Shame you don't quite have your facts straight with regards to what happened then or now.

[fred41]

Shame on me! Sorry it's your fucked up country and not mine
Damn, didn't know it was his...Which fucked up country do you own?

[Stavros]

I might be wrong but I believe that Bobvela was hinting at the controversy over Lincoln's presidency which has been reviewed in these terms:

"The godfather of despotism": the charge has haunted Abraham Lincoln from the advent of the Civil War to the wake of his bicentennial. From partisans during the war to early twentieth century historians to post-World War II political scientists fearing an "imperial presidency" to the latest libertarian Lincoln-hater, Lincoln has been vilified as someone who destroyed the Constitution in order to save the Union. The bill of particulars is lengthy and grave: he suspended habeas corpus and jailed opponents, flouted a court order by the Chief Justice of the United States, ordered troops raised and materiel purchased, blockaded Southern ports, emancipated slaves after denying the power to do so-all without prior Congressional authorization. Professor Clinton Rossiter of Columbia put the case starkly in 1948: "dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms .... Lincoln's amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal”.

The full 16-page study of this controversy by Dennis Hutchinson (Chicago Law School) can be found here:
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2531&context=journal_articles

[Yuengling]

Well, it's not legal to enter another country without permission and then surreptitiously set up residency there.

So, if I was in charge the first thing I would do is reverse Obama's executive order. Then I would deport all illegal aliens. All 11 million or whatever it is. Then I would seal the border with orders to shoot on sight those trying to cross illegally. Then I would impeach Obama. Then I would have Obama arrested and thrown in jail for being a traitor.

[Jericho]

Well, it's not legal to enter another country without permission and then surreptitiously set up residency there.

So, if I was in charge the first thing I would do is reverse Obama's executive order. Then I would deport all illegal aliens. All 11 million or whatever it is. Then I would seal the border with orders to shoot on sight those trying to cross illegally. Then I would impeach Obama. Then I would have Obama arrested and thrown in jail for being a traitor.

...................

[natina]

I got a few for you


...................

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=772160&stc=1&d=1418275143

[Yuengling]

Those are dumb cartoons! There weren't any immigration laws back then. No international laws, etc. People all over the world didn't know anything other than exploration at will. Unlike today when there ARE immigration laws that MUST be followed no matter what!

But I guess they make good cartoons.

[trish]

There was certainly the concept of tribal nations, lands and the notion of trespass. Offenders of The Law were often enslaved or simply killed.

[fred41]

I think many of us start out with some core beliefs that hopefully they can back up with personal arguments about why they feel the way they do.
You can start out with some pretty hard core beliefs about illegal immigration (as I may have at one time)...but I think personal experience can change things an awful lot. As for me, I got to know and love quite a few folks who turned out to be undocumented...and for me - loyalties to people that mean something to me come first. There are folks I love that I would never want to see deported...and there are folks I love that I wish had the freedom to come back...that I miss.
The only reason I'm a citizen myself is because my father served in the army abroad. It's a technicality I can't and won't cling to as a moral upper hand.
This is something that needs to be fixed for the long term...we especially need to fix shit in our own back yard so it doesn't bite us in the ass in the future. Our political squabbles often meant that we didn't play well with our immediate neighbors as perhaps we should have...I don't know.
But we need to fix this.

[Odelay]

I think many of us start out with some core beliefs that hopefully they can back up with personal arguments about why they feel the way they do.
You can start out with some pretty hard core beliefs about illegal immigration (as I may have at one time)...but I think personal experience can change things an awful lot. As for me, I got to know and love quite a few folks who turned out to be undocumented...and for me - loyalties to people that mean something to me come first. There are folks I love that I would never want to see deported...and there are folks I love that I wish had the freedom to come back...that I miss.
The only reason I'm a citizen myself is because my father served in the army abroad. It's a technicality I can't and won't cling to as a moral upper hand.
This is something that needs to be fixed for the long term...we especially need to fix shit in our own back yard so it doesn't bite us in the ass in the future. Our political squabbles often meant that we didn't play well with our immediate neighbors as perhaps we should have...I don't know.
But we need to fix this.
Fred, I've always enjoyed your posts and this one is one of your best.

Knowing that your politics are neither far right, nor far left, there is a strong common sense underpinning your point here. And if I may, there's a broader point. Once a person gets to know individual people from a group who'd they never met before, it's very likely to change one's opinion of those people.

The more segregated a society is, the more likely those groups won't intermingle. I also believe there's a strong us vs them in societies mainly comprised of two tribes. I live in New Mexico and on one side is Arizona and the other is Texas, both states dealing with immigration and policies towards Latinos in a pretty harsh way. And yet here in New Mexico there's a lot less strife and I believe part of it is that Anglos and Latinos have learned to respect diversity due to the high % of Native Americans here. In fact, living here a few months and I have come to appreciate the large diversity just within the Native American population.

Now I realize this doesn't explain Arizona which also has a large Native American population. But perhaps there's a critical mass at work as AZ is about 5% vs NM at 10% Native American. I'm not really sure how the harmony works here. It surely isn't enhanced by the local Albuquerque police dept which by almost any measure of killing the people they serve, beats just about every jurisdiction in the US - twice that of Chicago and something like ten times that of NYC. But I will say this, they seem to be equal opportunity killers as APD appear to kill with complete disregard to skin color. But anyway, that's a whole 'nother issue.

Bottom line, the more integrated a society is, the more harmony seems to exist. I think one advantage the gay rights movement has enjoyed is that gay people are disbursed across the nation. Nowadays everyone has a sister, a cousin and/or 3 co-workers who are gay. It's no longer just the hair dressers, as it was back in the 70's. As a result, gay marriage is almost the law of the land. It's interesting how the LGBT population, representing about 10% of the total, is less discriminated against than the African American population at 13%.

But it all begins with that one on one interaction that Fred speaks of above.

[Yuengling]

As for me, I got to know and love quite a few folks who turned out to be undocumented...and for me - loyalties to people that mean something to me come first. There are folks I love that I would never want to see deported...and there are folks I love that I wish had the freedom to come back...that I miss.

Which is still not a legal argument. It is not legal to enter another country without permission and then surreptitiously set up residency there. They are literally illegal aliens not "undocumented" workers.

If you or I were to sneak into Germany or Italy or Australia or wherever with no passport, no visa, no documentation of any kind, and then proceed to surreptitiously set up residency in one of those countries, we would be considered exactly what are...illegal aliens. We would correctly be deported when found out.

And it is exactly the same for every single person from Mexico and other countries from south of the border illegally occupying America. All 11 million of them or whatever the number is. Every single one is literally a criminal. I'm not making this up. This is not a subjective interpretation.

[trish]

If you drive without a license you are an unlicensed driver, not an illegal driver.

[bobvela]

If you drive without a license you are an unlicensed driver, not an illegal driver.

So simplistic... but then... what more can we expect from you?

If someone kills someone without lawful permission or legal cause... are they an undocumented/unlicensed killer? No... we have other legal names for that.

Or are you going to claim that those not lawfully in this country are in fact unlicensed aliens, rather than illegal/undocumented aliens?

I purposely use the term 'alien' as it is one that is codified in US law (http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2011/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-ii/part-viii/section-1321/) with regards to persons in the United States who are not natives nor authorized to be present.

Do you want to claim that those unlawfully here are 'unauthorized'? That would be a more correct argument... assuming the whole 'undocumented' thing were put to rest... which isn't likely to happen... or do you want to claim that someone who shoots a couple of cops sitting in a car is simply an 'undocumented killer' who lacked the proper documentation that the person who pulls the lever for the electric chair as part of a state sponsored execution has?

[trish]

If someone kills someone without lawful permission or legal cause... are they an undocumented/unlicensed killer? They are murderers, not illegal killers (unless they're double 0 agents in which case they have a license to kill). If you're caught driving without a license the charge is "driving without a license", not "illegal driving." Surely your driver's license document your legal right to be driving on the public roads.


Or are you going to claim that those not lawfully in this country are in fact unlicensed aliens, rather than illegal/undocumented aliens?
It's not up to me to claim anything...just saying that the law considers them undocumented and charges them as such.

[fred41]

Fred, I've always enjoyed your posts and this one is one of your best.

Knowing that your politics are neither far right, nor far left, there is a strong common sense underpinning your point here. And if I may, there's a broader point. Once a person gets to know individual people from a group who'd they never met before, it's very likely to change one's opinion of those people.

The more segregated a society is, the more likely those groups won't intermingle. I also believe there's a strong us vs them in societies mainly comprised of two tribes. I live in New Mexico and on one side is Arizona and the other is Texas, both states dealing with immigration and policies towards Latinos in a pretty harsh way. And yet here in New Mexico there's a lot less strife and I believe part of it is that Anglos and Latinos have learned to respect diversity due to the high % of Native Americans here. In fact, living here a few months and I have come to appreciate the large diversity just within the Native American population.

Now I realize this doesn't explain Arizona which also has a large Native American population. But perhaps there's a critical mass at work as AZ is about 5% vs NM at 10% Native American. I'm not really sure how the harmony works here. It surely isn't enhanced by the local Albuquerque police dept which by almost any measure of killing the people they serve, beats just about every jurisdiction in the US - twice that of Chicago and something like ten times that of NYC. But I will say this, they seem to be equal opportunity killers as APD appear to kill with complete disregard to skin color. But anyway, that's a whole 'nother issue.

Bottom line, the more integrated a society is, the more harmony seems to exist. I think one advantage the gay rights movement has enjoyed is that gay people are disbursed across the nation. Nowadays everyone has a sister, a cousin and/or 3 co-workers who are gay. It's no longer just the hair dressers, as it was back in the 70's. As a result, gay marriage is almost the law of the land. It's interesting how the LGBT population, representing about 10% of the total, is less discriminated against than the African American population at 13%.

But it all begins with that one on one interaction that Fred speaks of above.

Well thank you very much...and of course, what you said about segregation, I believe to be absolutely correct.


Which is still not a legal argument. It is not legal to enter another country without permission and then surreptitiously set up residency there. They are literally illegal aliens not "undocumented" workers.

If you or I were to sneak into Germany or Italy or Australia or wherever with no passport, no visa, no documentation of any kind, and then proceed to surreptitiously set up residency in one of those countries, we would be considered exactly what are...illegal aliens. We would correctly be deported when found out.

And it is exactly the same for every single person from Mexico and other countries from south of the border illegally occupying America. All 11 million of them or whatever the number is. Every single one is literally a criminal. I'm not making this up. This is not a subjective interpretation.

You're right...it wasn't a legal argument...but that's irrelevant, because I wasn't trying to make one. Are they breaking a law?...Yes they are...but I'm not a robot, so I don't believe all laws carry the same weight. I've solicited prostitutes, smoked marijuana and am a serial jaywalker...so lock me up forever...lol.
are you telling me you never broke a single law in your whole life?

Look, no one is saying no one should ever be deported...but each individual case is not the same. There are humane ways to do this. Some people really do come here to support their families. What, they shouldn't try to do this? If your family was going to go hungry and the only realistic way for you to stop this is to sneak across the border and find any kind of work available...you wouldn't do this? Let's get some kind of guest worker system in place that makes this easier...perhaps something that would help put a tax system in place so, for instance, schools systems that are unduly burdened by the illegal (there..feel better?)child student population can better make ends meet.

[trish]

Thank you for some insightful posts Fred and Odelay.

To the antagonists: Of course you can refer to anyone by any epithet you please. What you choose to call them may be inappropriate and miss its mark, but your choice will always reflect upon your own character and your own attitude toward those to whom you refer.

Yes, the law requires proper documentation; and deportation is often the mandated punishment. Obama has deported more immigrants than any president in history. In 2006 Pew estimated there were perhaps twelve million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. It doesn’t take a genius to surmise that logistically it would be too costly both economically and politically to track down and deport that many people. It doesn’t take a saint to realize how immoral it would be to separate that many families, or to turn away the child refugees who are now at our borders in flight from the cartels that now run Honduras.

Reform is not about what the law is, but about what the law should be. I would hope that immigration law in the U.S. reflect the family values we claim to espouse.

[Odelay]

Undocumented is actually a very good way to describe the immigrants who are living and working here. It is the same for the the ancestors of 95% of Americans. I love the conceit of those Americans who are descended from Europeans who emigrated here in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They seem to lose sight of the fact that their grandparents and great grandparents entered the US without any papers or documents approving their emigration beforehand. Ellis Island and other entry points weren't checking people's papers. They were checking for disease and then letting hoardes of people pass on through. No one had papers.

My own grandparents entered through the port of Baltimore from Germany. They had nothing except bare travel expenses to the Great Plains where the government gave them 160 acres of land for free. If you don't think you have a similar grandparent or two in your family tree, then you're not looking hard enough.

[natina]

I am gonna come to your home and say I discovered it!!

its called columbusing and start making laws and rules


I am gonna to columbus your home
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/06/25/_columbusing_college_humor_video_coins_the_perfect _term_for_when_white_people.html#comments