Obama makes election-year change in deportation policy

[petegz28]

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/administ...gration-policy

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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.

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]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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]

Jesus H.

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

What's wrong with this picture?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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]

I'm all for no deportation and allowing amnesty if the minimum wage is abolished

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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.

at the fail

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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.


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.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

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


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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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.