Obama to create "Dream Act";

[brandon184]

I get the impression that immigration is one of those issues that will be dealt with in a way that is 180 degrees different when the up and coming generation of policy and lawmakers gets involved.

Look no further than this thread for an example of the difference I am talking about. The younger posters come from a position of pragmatism and problem solving. The older posters are bitter, spiteful and just generally angry, almost as if they'd willfully impede real progress if it meant they could somehow prove a point.

[pickel]

I get the impression that immigration is one of those issues that will be dealt with in a way that is 180 degrees different when the up and coming generation of policy and lawmakers gets involved.

Look no further than this thread for an example of the difference I am talking about. The younger posters come from a position of pragmatism and problem solving. The older posters are bitter, spiteful and just generally angry, almost as if they'd willfully impede real progress if it meant they could somehow prove a point.

Al I want is EQUAL Justice under the Law. What's good for one , should be good for Everybody. I'm not really MAD, just filled with contempt for a man, a system that can be twisted to suit one man's or a group of men's personal agenda , when I have to follow the Law to the letter or wind up getting fined or imprisoned. Shit Sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tony_j15]

No tony, you don't have an ethical obligation to disobey the law! That would make you a criminal. You do have an ethical obligation to push to have law over turned, amended, revoked, or removed, through the legal process' available. Those legal process' may include Congress and the Courts.

Disobeying a law makes one a criminal under the eyes of the law, yes. But what you need to get through your skull is that is in no way the entirety of the story.
Is a German citizen during the '40's who hid Jews in his attic a criminal? According to law, yes. But what would that person actually be?
Is a person who lived in the south during the 1850's and participated in the Underground Railroad a criminal? According to the law, yes. But what would that person actually be?
Is a girl who was brought to America at the age of six by her parents and who is now grown up and attempting to become a surgeon a criminal simply because of a situation beyond her control? According to severely outdated laws, possibly yes. But what would that girl actually be?

I cannot continue to debate you here until you come to terms with the reality of the situation. Your argument continues to be based on some sort of black and white philosophy that implies laws are always just and right, and that disobeying the law is always wrong. If that is not what you think, please inform me.

[pickel]

Disobeying a law makes one a criminal under the eyes of the law, yes. But what you need to get through your skull is that is in no way the entirety of the story.
Is a German citizen during the '40's who hid Jews in his attic a criminal? According to law, yes. But what would that person actually be?
Is a person who lived in the south during the 1850's and participated in the Underground Railroad a criminal? According to the law, yes. But what would that person actually be?
Is a girl who was brought to America at the age of six by her parents and who is now grown up and attempting to become a surgeon a criminal simply because of a situation beyond her control? According to severely outdated laws, possibly yes. But what would that girl actually be?

I cannot continue to debate you here until you come to terms with the reality of the situation. Your argument continues to be based on some sort of black and white philosophy that implies laws are always just and right, and that disobeying the law is always wrong. If that is not what you think, please inform me.

Aside from all the controversy and argument pro or con, We grew up in the USA and many of us to an oath to defend the Constitution and the Laws of the USA. That being said, my point is that I went into the Navy to defend America, it's sovereignty, and it's citizens. NOT Illegal aliens. These people come here and SQUAT. That's all they are SQUATTERS. Now ,in hard times, with some many of our people out of work, Veterans who are half a man, high school and college kids needing work, Obombma comes out with this insulting gesture to those who need it the most.... OUR Men , Women and children. They should come FIRST, especially the Vets. But here's what they REALLY get...

Lawmaker seeks probe of Miss. VA hospital - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

The doctor over there , recently, almost caused my neighbor ( a Highly decorated war veteran) to almost have kidney failure by giving him 2 scripts that conflicted with each other. Luckily, he went to our family doctor and is in remission.
Take care of our OWN First, then after that go down the line.
That's all I want.
But, Harder is Right. Until the Law is changed it must be followed PERIOD

[sharder8]

Disobeying a law makes one a criminal under the eyes of the law, yes. But what you need to get through your skull is that is in no way the entirety of the story.
Is a German citizen during the '40's who hid Jews in his attic a criminal? According to law, yes. But what would that person actually be?
Is a person who lived in the south during the 1850's and participated in the Underground Railroad a criminal? According to the law, yes. But what would that person actually be?
Is a girl who was brought to America at the age of six by her parents and who is now grown up and attempting to become a surgeon a criminal simply because of a situation beyond her control? According to severely outdated laws, possibly yes. But what would that girl actually be?

I cannot continue to debate you here until you come to terms with the reality of the situation. Your argument continues to be based on some sort of black and white philosophy that implies laws are always just and right, and that disobeying the law is always wrong. If that is not what you think, please inform me.

Civil disobedience is not the answer tony!

You're right, there is no use in me arguing law with a criminal. What the hell are laws good for, besides making us pay taxes to support you and those that want to break or ignore the law? Why don't you do a little research to learn why man created and creates law? No where does it say you can pick and chose what laws you want to follow and that you won't be punished for not following those you don't agree with. It's an all or nothing concept tony. Either you follow the laws or they aren't worth the paper they're written on.


Harder

[The Real Bingo]

Laws are not made to be broken, but they can be CHANGED. The president has the power to CHANGE them. If you don't like that, then go live in a country where you have no choice on who gets to be in control of the government.

That's congress's job. And that just illustrates this isn't about the kiddies or anything like that...it's a way to pander and get votes and to turn these illegal Mexicans into the next group of oppressed blacks - people who think they owe their well-being to the Democrat party, even though that's the party that's been holding them back for decades. Obama is bypassing actual substantive law in exchange for politically expedient diversions.

It could also be a start to an open borders/NAU setup, but let's keep it real.

[sharder8]

I get the impression that immigration is one of those issues that will be dealt with in a way that is 180 degrees different when the up and coming generation of policy and lawmakers gets involved.

Look no further than this thread for an example of the difference I am talking about. The younger posters come from a position of pragmatism and problem solving. The older posters are bitter, spiteful and just generally angry, almost as if they'd willfully impede real progress if it meant they could somehow prove a point.

I'm not bitter, spiteful, or angry . . . and I welcome change from the up and coming generation of policy and lawmakers! I am not happy with the current generation of policy and lawmakers and I will (like pickel) rise up if the current or future generations try to tear our Constitution down or step on our Bill of Rights. Until then, abide by the laws on the books.


Harder

[sharder8]

That's congress's job. And that just illustrates this isn't about the kiddies or anything like that...it's a way to pander and get votes and to turn these illegal Mexicans into the next group of oppressed blacks - people who think they owe their well-being to the Democrat party, even though that's the party that's been holding them back for decades. Obama is bypassing actual substantive law in exchange for politically expedient diversions.

It could also be a start to an open borders/NAU setup, but let's keep it real.

Uh-h-h-h-h-h . . . they aren't all Mexicans TRB! They come from many countries. Mexicans are typically singled out because of AZ, TX, CA, and OR.


Harder

[Whir]

Argh, I just accidentally deleted my wall of text.

[Whir]

Let me just touch on a few things here before I get to any real discussions.

Chuckiechan, I’m sure your “half of Mexico” figure is exaggeration for the purpose of making a point, but could you furnish numbers to the effect of how many illegal immigrants are on welfare in California versus how many work and how many _legal_ immigrants are versus how many work? Real numbers and not percentages as percentages can be misinterpreted.

Brandon, I don’t think they are willfully impeding progress, but standing by laws they’ve lived with and possibly voted on themselves. I am curious though as to how pickel, Chuckiechan and sharder would vote if they had the opportunity to change these laws to something more similar to what the DREAM Act is pushing.

As I said previously, TRB, the President, as our elected leader, has the ability and the right to create and or annul (or sidestep as it has been said) laws as he sees fit. We’ve already been down this path when DODT was bashing about. Presidential orders are nifty like that. Or am I wrong?

sharder, as history has shown us many, many times, civil disobedience _is_ the answer when a growing minority has a need of affecting change on the majority. At least non-violent disobedience -- violence only begets violence and has never gotten anyone but the ruling party anywhere. Look no further than the US civil rights movements and the current situations in the Middle East --particularly the Taliban or Egypt -- to show that I am correct here.

pickel, I understand your point about this new workforce supplanting hard-working Americans, veterans included. However, you cannot blame this on the people it would make legal workers. The blame must be placed on the people that do the hiring. Were it me, I would hire an American and especially a veteran above a card-holding immigrant. I haven’t seen anything in the available info that would make these quasi-Americans a consideration for affirmative action hiring practices either. To me, blaming the new workforce for taking American jobs is like blaming guns for killing people. I’m pretty sure you understand the concept I’m putting forth here.

Though I agree with tony on a great many points, I do not believe I can approach this from a justice over law point of view. It’s not about either to me. As I’ve said before, I feel that giving the _children_ of illegals a chance, when they have been raised here for a better part of their lives, is not a bad idea. In fact, it’s something that we, as a progressive nation which touts humanitarianism and equality above all else, _must_ do.

I also do not believe a comparison to US civil rights movements or Nazi Germany is adequate, though perhaps the Civil War and slavery is. In the former, women and blacks were already US citizens, as were the Jews in Germany. The people the DREAM Act would affect are not citizens at all, nor would it make them so.

I have no problem with casting out illegal immigrants and I feel those laws should be enforced, but, again, the children of those illegals had no choice in coming here. They have been raised American. They go to American schools, fight in the American military and just as any other American child, possess what could be a great future for America. And I’d be willing to bet that nine times out of ten, the illegal parents of these children would happily be deported if their children could stay and have a better life.

As far as I am aware, this act does NOT guarantee the parents of these children amnesty. They are just as illegal and subject to laws as they ever were. This is to say that many of the law arguments I’ve seen advanced by contributors to this thread have absolutely no basis in reality. It does not concern the parents of the immigrants, who are the people which broke the laws.

It does present a set of ramifications for children under 18 who have no other family in the US though. I am curious to know how that might be handled. Would their parents be grandfathered in? Would they be placed in foster or group homes? Yet another set of ethical and economical debates…

[Chuckiechan]

The wages of farm workers in California have been going up since the so many illegals left. Farm and orchard owners are having to pay legal wages, and many other low skilled jobs are seeing raises since the illegals are less available.

The point of this is border enforcement helps poor legal immigrants and blacks. Obama must believe Mexicans and blacks want more downward pressure on their wages.

What is next? Or rather, who is next.

[Whir]

Were you going to address my request to you?

[pickel]

It does present a set of ramifications for children under 18 who have no other family in the US though. I am curious to know how that might be handled. Would their parents be grandfathered in? Would they be placed in foster or group homes? Yet another set of ethical and economical debates…

Not only this scenario , but, as I posted earlier, how do we cope with the influx of "cousins and bro's" who come here and CLAIM to be of the newly classified "Obombma" liberated????
Welcome to OUR Nightmare !!!
Another bureaucratic money pit. Wasted hard earned dollars.
And the disabled Vet sits in despair and the high school kid laments without hope.

Only in America........Very Sad , indeed......

[Whir]

The writing says they have to be able to _prove_ their claim. They can't just show up and say "hey, sign me up."

High school kids do not lament without hope. And if they do, it's not because of a handful of immigrants who are suddenly granted the privilege (not right) to work in the US. It's because our government has driven the nation to the edge of collapse trying to win the pissing match instead of actually doing what it's supposed to. Another discussion for another thread, though.

[MTAtech]

Then send the parents back, and leave the kids here. Or admit that you want open borders. Bottom line is you can't work without a SS number unless you get a federal ID... which only allows them to pay taxes, not work.

All Obama is trying to do is pander to another interest group.

But fine. That pandering is what got Gray Davis recalled in California.

Ahem:
A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants : NPR

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.
But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

[Chuckiechan]

And the ink was not even dry when Ted (Hic) Kennedy gutted the enforcement provisions, bring us back to where we started with a bigger problem.

This is why people are so against amnesty - we all got burned by the democrats last time.

[sharder8]

And the ink was not even dry when Ted (Hic) Kennedy gutted the enforcement provisions, bring us back to where we started with a bigger problem.

This is why people are so against amnesty - we all got burned by the democrats last time.

Don't even need to point fingers . . . this really says it all!

This is why people are so against amnesty - we all got burned

Something tony and brandon are too young to remember and understand.


Harder

[Whir]

Hm, my name isn't on your list harder, even though I was only 8! Am I making some headway here?!?

[Chuckiechan]

I'd also like to add that the number affected by Obama's largess is closer to 2 million. He speaks of college, but the truth is, most of the affected are not college graduates.

Whatever works to keep wages down is a good thing, right democrats?

So in California we've added approximately 500,000 to California's 2 million unemployed citizens. (1/4th of the 2 million affected)

I imagine there is a way to keep them off the books so as to not "spike" the unemployment numbers, or Obama would not have done it.

This is a disaster for working citizens and for the unemployed who are looking for work.

[Whir]

Links? You keep saying things like "half of Mexico" and "closer to two million," but where are you getting your information?