Thread: Obama stops deportation of illegals

So what you're saying is that what Obama is doing is not technically criminal, it's just extremely Down's syndrome retarded.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

So what you're saying is that what Obama is doing is not technically criminal, it's just extremely Down's syndrome retarded.

It's not criminal, no.

It's rational from a political standpoint--smart even--for him to do that given his promises to the Hispanic community. Moreover, there are legitimate reasons he can otherwise justify it on resource grounds the same way cops, prosecutors and civil enforcement officers and attorneys exercise similar discretion in focusing and tailoring their resources on the worst offenders.

OK, all kidding aside, you're wrong. On the face of it, you're making a very clever argument. The problem is that when law enforcement "apportions resources to enforcement," it does so on grounds of impact. In other words, we all know that, for example, jay walking is not strictly enforced. Right? That's because the impact of jay walking is not that big. Also, if you jay walk and get hit by a car, the guy who hit you isn't criminally liable, in general. But this has nothing to do with that. This decision was merely made, as you said and as we all recognize, out of political expediency. In other words, this was a decision made FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES with no concern of the impact on America. Literally, it's like "who cares about America, the country I'm sworn to uphold? Obama be needin' his drank!" You CANNOT defend that type of move because it's not "shifting resources so that we can deal with real problems." What real problems? Now that we're allowing all the illegals to fly in, where are those resources going again? Uh ....nowhere.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

So what you're saying is that what Obama is doing is not technically criminal, it's just extremely Down's syndrome retarded.

It's not retarded at all, he knows he can get away with it. Who going to not vote for him over it, republicans? He's so damn worried with who's paying their fair share of taxes, but doesn't give a shit if 15 million people are here illegally and the treasury is not getting a dime of their wages. It doesn't bother him that the scum that employ these people are skipping out on matching contributions either. Maybe if the illegal hiring tax cheat employers did their books aboard their corporate jet it'd piss him off.
Bottom line, he's picking up votes with this move and is not losing any over it. It's only when he pulls stunts like this I begin to think maybe he's smart after all, or just has smart people around him.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

OK, all kidding aside, you're wrong. On the face of it, you're making a very clever argument. The problem is that when law enforcement "apportions resources to enforcement," it does so on grounds of impact. In other words, we all know that, for example, jay walking is not strictly enforced. Right? That's because the impact of jay walking is not that big. Also, if you jay walk and get hit by a car, the guy who hit you isn't criminally liable, in general. But this has nothing to do with that. This decision was merely made, as you said and as we all recognize, out of political expediency. In other words, this was a decision made FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES with no concern of the impact on America. Literally, it's like "who cares about America, the country I'm sworn to uphold? Obama be needin' his drank!" You CANNOT defend that type of move because it's not "shifting resources so that we can deal with real problems." What real problems? Now that we're allowing all the illegals to fly in, where are those resources going again? Uh ....nowhere.

It's pretty damn obvious that political benefit is a big chunk of what he did. He has his own base voters to please if he wants to improve his election chances, and quite frankly, he's way behind on his promises to the Hispanic vote that voted for him based on promises he hasn't delivered.

But what he also did here is really actually just more honestly admitted than what's been done before...which is nothing. Heck, he's still doing more enforcement than predecessors did.

Ever since the illegal immigration explosion--which was schemed for nefarious purposes if one tracks why it happened and was not accidental why we're in the state we are with it--non-enforcement has been part of the scheme by design and now with the volume vis-a-vis resources and the debt and funding problems, etc, is now a necessity issue as well.

The nation now has 12 million illegal immigrants by estimates, which I find an understatement given I spot them mowing my lawns in my residency and office complexes and just had them serve me at a local diner today alone. Catching them all resource wise is a costly and difficult nightmare, and it also poses collateral consequences in certain cases where well entrenched ones can leave spouses and kids on the dole and/or with other setback we'll wind up subsidising anyway, etc. The current case log, IIRC, is well over 300,000 and counting and will get worse with certain upticks predicted to come. Housing them is a nightmare...we don't have the jails and jail space, or the government attorneys with resources and the courthouses with jurists and staff to handle every case for hearings and appeals, etc.

So, now prioritising becomes an issue given the volume and resources. Having an MS-13 drug trafficker illegal alien spending years in prison awaiting a deportation hearing because it's clogged up with an English speaking high school football star who was born in Mexico but never knew it, an excelling student who wants to be a doctor or go into the military whose also been here since childhood, or a peaceful worker father or mother with a US citizen spouse and US citizen children to support, etc, is not the wisest use of time, cash, resources, etc, as the Admin sees it.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

So, now prioritising becomes an issue given the volume and resources. Having an MS-13 drug trafficker illegal alien spending years in prison awaiting a deportation hearing because it's clogged up with an English speaking high school football star who was born in Mexico but never knew it, an excelling student who wants to be a doctor or go into the military whose also been here since childhood, or a peaceful worker father or mother with a US citizen spouse and US citizen children to support, etc, is not the wisest use of time, cash, resources, etc, as the Admin sees it.

That's a horrible argument, but one that people always use because they don't think. Who cares if the guy is a "high school football star" or "wants to be a doctor" or "go into the military"? That's all completely irrelevant. It's basically like saying "well, this guy DID get into a car accident, but on the other hand he volunteers at the soup kitchen every day and this other guy curses at children ...so we really only care about the other guy." Those "feeeeeeling" type of arguments are liberal arguments because they don't think, they just feeeeel.

This isn't about "volume and resources." You JUST said (and I agree) this is about gaining votes. Period. He literally doesn't care about "volume and resources." If you're being honest, you'd just say "actually, it's because he doesn't mind illegal immigrants." At least then, I'd be satisfied with you being intellectually honest about the issue because that's the truth.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

That's a horrible argument, but one that people always use because they don't think. Who cares if the guy is a "high school football star" or "wants to be a doctor" or "go into the military"? That's all completely irrelevant. It's basically like saying "well, this guy DID get into a car accident, but on the other hand he volunteers at the soup kitchen every day and this other guy curses at children ...so we really only care about the other guy." Those "feeeeeeling" type of arguments are liberal arguments because they don't think, they just feeeeel.

This isn't about "volume and resources." You JUST said (and I agree) this is about gaining votes. Period. He literally doesn't care about "volume and resources." If you're being honest, you'd just say "actually, it's because he doesn't mind illegal immigrants." At least then, I'd be satisfied with you being intellectually honest about the issue because that's the truth.

Oh it's the clear right argument IMO and I've certainly thought about it. Hell, I actually frigging know it first hand given I do some immigration legal work and see first hand what goes on in these courts, the backlog situations, etc.

There's nothing 'liberal' about what I said in the way you framed them...that's your feelings IMO in action in the face of facts. I'm a pragmatist by nature and take the facts as I find them, not as I want them. In fact, I consider that a conservative trait, a real one, and not the kind of emo-'conservative' stuff I now see becoming prevalent that's no different in emotional foundation than what you're claiming liberals do.

What I said you may disagree, but it's honestly offered and, IMO, correct. If anything, hard core types on this issue ought to get real themselves and come to terms that their past defaults come with consequences. It's time to admit it, buck up, and deal with it honestly, efficiently and fairly and squarely.

As for fairly and squarely, that's not a thing I call liberal. I call that doing the right thing, and one that involves personal responsibility and accountability to what one does to contribute to something--something I was taught is a conservative value as well.

That includes these DREAM ACT type people who form the bulk of the new policy. They shouldn't have been here in the first place. But they were allowed to remain here, be raised here, we've invested our tax dollars in them in education and other things for which a return benefit is due, etc. This nation defaulted on that, so IMO, whinging about their presence now comes too late equity wise, never mind investment wise. The kids are by now American in all but paperwork. This is their home because this nation made it so. Nobody gets to sit on their claims for decades and them come crying for enforcement. You snooze, you lose. It's this nation's collective fault why they are in the situation they are, and the right thing to do is not punish them (especially since they were faultless personally how they got here) but rather clean up our own act insofar as enforcing immigration laws and policies.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be in any nation. But this one massively defaulted on that and now it's saddled with hordes of them. Part of that is due to 'unclean hands' because they were wanted as cheap labour. Part of that was pandering to the new accumulation of Hispanics whether legal or illegal given they support each other. Part of that was just frigging negligence and sleeping at the wheel. There are other aspect too.

That's all water under the bridge now...they're here, and here in huge numbers, and must be handled pragmatically and fairly and squarely given the ground situation of the effect caused by who stays and who goes, etc, and the resources, costs, etc. Going forward, we need a policy that's productive and sincerely enforced insofar as legal entry and enforcement on illegal entry and residency.

We do not have the resources to kick everyone out formally. That's especially so right now with the cutbacks and debt issues we must face, and the lack of will to raise revenue via taxes, etc. These things also have consequences.

The best course IMO to deal with this issue is to go after comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible and make the best of it. That, IMO, means getting productive well entrenched people out of the undermarket into a pathway where they pay taxes and don't undercut American labour, focus on expelling the criminal and sponger elements, getting a legal pathway for a reasonable and desired set of immigrants, and going after all future illegal immigration with solid border and tougher law enforcement measures to curtail and punish it going forward.

Originally Posted by TheCollective

Same can be said about republicans whose goals have been to make Obama a one-term president the day he got elected. Seems like they were also more interested in garnering and holding power.

You have two opposing parties running to win. Every election you enter, you enter to win. Every losing party wants to win the next election. What would ever give you the idea when a party loses they give up trying to win back what they lost.

Each party has different views and to move those views forward they have to win. What don't you get about that.

To O'Sullivan Bere:

You say that conservatism is about pragmatism. No, pragmatism is about pragmatism. Now, I agree with you that the country has "unclean hands," that people wanted the cheap labor of illegals just as much as the illegals wanted the free benefits of citizenship. So we're not arguing about "who is to blame." But to say "pragmatism says that we can't deport them all" is a farce. They all got here somehow, and yet by definition they can never return. Why is that? In other words, if they can all come here, why is it "reality" that they cannot all go back? I don't mean "all at once." I mean "ever."

Now, getting back to the original topic, which is Obama, you cannot excuse his actions by saying "pragmatism." That is, his actions undermine the laws of the country. That is not "pragmatic" and neither was this decision made for "pragmatism." It was made out of liberalism.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

To O'Sullivan Bere:

You say that conservatism is about pragmatism. No, pragmatism is about pragmatism. Now, I agree with you that the country has "unclean hands," that people wanted the cheap labor of illegals just as much as the illegals wanted the free benefits of citizenship. So we're not arguing about "who is to blame." But to say "pragmatism says that we can't deport them all" is a farce. They all got here somehow, and yet by definition they can never return. Why is that? In other words, if they can all come here, why is it "reality" that they cannot all go back? I don't mean "all at once." I mean "ever."

Now, getting back to the original topic, which is Obama, you cannot excuse his actions by saying "pragmatism." That is, his actions undermine the laws of the country. That is not "pragmatic" and neither was this decision made for "pragmatism." It was made out of liberalism.

Pragmatism is pragmatism, you're correct about that. The aspect I was saying was taken as conservative--at least in the past when I was raised to expect what it was--was involving personal accountability and responsibility in what we do individually or was done in our name as citizens. That's the part I adhere to.

That's the part I was bringing up insofar as who with this policy is of concern, e.g. the DREAM Act people. I'm entirely unsympathetic from a justification point of view for those who call for these young types to get deported now when they should have been deported when once appearing on our school registers, etc, when toddlers. I see it akin to other areas of the law where we regularly have defence and bars like statutes of limitations, adverse possesion in property ('squatter's defence' to the extremely tardy claimant), or, on the equity, laches (bar by extensive default on seeking enforcement where others are now detrimented by it). IMO, Americans ought to own up to what these people at issue are now set to deal with, namely being raised as Americans, and even us having invested in them for which a return should be sought. Those who seek justice must have clean hands and do justice, and we haven't done that with them by seeking their removal when appropriate and allowing them to now be in the situation they are as raised Americans without paperwork.

But it's more than just that as explained. Pragmatically, we ought to get an investment from these people we allowed to vest themselves here. We paid for their education. Why should Mexico or someone else now get any fruits of that investment? We should be getting the return on investment for that. Also, by keeping them in this limbo, we aren't getting the investment for it, and rather denying us the benefit plus adding losses to us as well as them by doing so.

I'm all for strict enforcement going forward and getting every illegal out who comes in the future, including kids before they vest themselves here. But what's done is done as to those already vested here. I understand the cry to enforce laws. But that cry should have happened many, many years ago. It didn't, so now what exists exists and must be dealt with pragmatically. The lesson to learn here IMO if one wants border control is to actually control the border. A tough lesson, but time to learn it and be a man about what happened when it was not.

It's pragmatic because it will cost us massive money to do the kind of enforcement playing 'catch up' you are suggesting. For example, in my area, the feds have to pay local prisons to house them, and there just isn't the room to do so for the vast number of cases and more than could be filed if or once caught. It's already well maxed out. How long will it take us to build massive number of temporary prisons to house 10-15-20 million people for years pending civil deportation proceedings and appeals? How much will that cost? How much more will it cost to keep chasing, ferreting and putting them into that process? How much for all the new staff and courthouses to process all that? How much will we be spending in dole money and other collateral costs for any US citizen spouses and children? It's a massive scale cost and project. Money and resources don't grow on trees, and especially now.

It simply makes more sense to try to get a benefit from this massive scale default by getting benefits and profits from all those who can be productive taxpaying contributors already vested here, freeing up assets to go after the criminals and spongers amongst them that nobody wants even if they were legally admitted or not, creating a pathway to proper immigration to get people legally in who we desire that also relieves stress and costs on our enforcement efforts, and using enforcement asset to target anyone coming in the future seeking to evade our immigration law process.

So Obama is really for crime.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

So Obama is really for crime.

That's even a legal impossibility in this situation. Being present here without authorisation is actually not a crime at all under current law. It's just a civil matter at present.

To Sullivan O'Bere:

That's well written, but I disagree. You seem to have three main points in your post. Let me address each.

1) We ignored the problem and so, essentially, we gave up our chance to deport them.
This is a tricky issue. On the one hand, as I said, I agree that we ignored the issue -- who could argue otherwise when we estimate that there are like 30 million illegal immigrants in America? But it's not that cut and dried. For example, hospitals are not allowed to determine who is an illegal immigrant. Now, is that MY policy? No. I can't do anything about it, not really, even with elections. Government is fairly inert. It's not like if we elect a Republican, they replace the entire government. Most times, most people remain from administration to administration. Most policy doesn't change much. The fact that ICE hasn't vigorously dealt with illegal immigrants, that's true. But that doesn't mean if I get an administration in power who will actually deal with the problem that we have to go "well, the previous ten administrations ignored the problem, so you have to ignore it, too. That's the rule." Or else, we might as well just have one administration in perpetuity, really.

2) We invested an education in them, we get to benefit from them.
The pragmatist in you really should say, "hey, have you seen American education lately? We're not losing anything." LOL. What are they going to take back to Mexico? Our secrets on how to use a dental dam and propoganda on global warming? But more seriously, on a cost-benefit analysis we really AREN'T losing anything. Our education, really, is nothing special. Sure, we educated them, but what I'm saying is that's not that big an investment. If you tell me "we lose the money to educate them ...but we also lose the cost of any welfare, social support services, hospital care, and unemployment," I think we still come out comfortably ahead.

3) In the same pragmatic vein, the cost of deportation will be massive.
Undoubtedly. But again, even if you don't care about principle and only are being pragmatic, the LONG TERM benefits are huge. What costs more, the cost to deport someone or to take care of them and their kids in the future and their kids? And what is the cost to society when we throw up our hands at the problem and say "too big to tackle"? What does that tell people? And again, we're not talking "deport all at once." This problem developed over thirty to forty years. Maybe it will take fifty or sixty years to deal with. I can live with that. Secure the border. Then, every time you run into an illegal in any government functionality, deport them. I bet you it happens quickly IF we actually follow the laws.