jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (54 posts)

Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform Speech

  1. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    I think Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform speech was one of the best he has given. He touched on all the right points. And I like the content of his proposed action.

    Here is the speech:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeT_vu31eaw

    But... I also think it was a pure political move. I do not believe he was motivated to do it now because of any sense of compassion or urgency.

    If it was compassion and urgency that propelled him to take this action now...

    Why didn't he do it in 2009 or 2010 when he had democratic control?

    Why didn't he do it after the 2011 or 2012, or 2013 Congress failed to act?

    My answer: Because he is doing it solely for political reasons. He brings in "The American way," "the American culture of compassion," the "American history of its immigrant foundations," the image of tearing children from their mother's arms, and even scripture.

    Damn good speech, and reasonable choice of actions, but shameful in his portrayal, and deceitful in his motivation and facts.

    Crass politics dressed up as American compassion - shame on you Pres. Obama!

    What say you?

    GA

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I could only watch 2 seconds of it. I heard a couple of disingenuous, personal, anecdotal type references ie joe plumber the undocumented immigrant stuff and felt nauseous.  I want to be an undocumented immigrant in New Zealand, but there's probably a law against it.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Did you disagree with all parts of his actions, or just the principle of the matter?

        Do you think an illegal immigrant that has been in the US for 10+ years, started a family, assimilated into and contributed to their community as a law abiding non-citizen should be treated the same as an illegal immigrant that is a serious felon, or is caught crossing the first highway after the border?

        Do you think it is even possible to round-up 11-13 million illegal immigrants? Is such an effort the America you want to be proud of?

        Of course, I pose these last two questions to you knowing that you understand that I think the true answer to both is no.

        GA

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Like I said GA, I didn't watch it to be able go into any detail. In today's world I do not think it is wise to have a lax policy towards illegal immigration. It's just a matter of security. It creates an atmosphere of people thinking they can come over our borders with impunity. Because of that, even more will come and in that mix, terrorists could slip through. It's not pragmatic to deport people on that scale, nor would it seem American, to do so. With that atmosphere of a lax policy towards illegal immigration will probably come an increase in the human trafficking problem eg coyotes. It may seem compassionate to open the doors for a better life, but it enables a human trafficking problem (which will now get worse) and people, women, children will be dying in the deserts. Good intentions need to come with thoughtfulness. I am compassionate however and would suggest some alternative like, instead of bailing out Wall St Bankers, or Auto Unions and Automakers, along with a pay cut for Politicians like Obama and use that money to fund the worlds largest assembly line solar panel plant on the border, maybe Laredo. They could only employ our Southern Neighbors along with free doctors and dentists at the plant for employees and familiy. I dont want to gut their culture by luring them here, when they could help them there and people wont be dying along the way and terrorists and drug cartel wont get in as easy.

          1. Phyllis Doyle profile image93
            Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            +1111  Very good way of thinking, Phoenix. I agree with you. This opens us wide up to a lot of problems. And it definitely is a political move, not compassionate at all, as GA said.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Phyllis smile Probably best not to encourage me lol but I sincerely appreciate your kind words, I really do smile

              CMerritt wrote this earlier:

              "The only logical thing I can see that would benefit the POTUS, that it would guarantee 5 million more votes for the democrat party…..as they would not want to bite the hand that feeds them."

              PhoenixV:

              I think another alternative is the deliberate erosion of sovereign borders. Big Brother could be expanding its operations eg European Union.

              What do you think of that crazy theory Phyllis?

          2. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I completely agree with your "lax immigration policy" sentiment,  but that is not what we are talking about. Put aside for a moment the claims that this executive action is a clarion call to illegal immigrants in-waiting, and deal with the context of the actions. Dealing with the illegals that are already here - and have been for a number of years.

            I am glad that you do not think deporting "all of them" is a pragmatic, or compassionate solution - I agree.  As for your solar plant solution suggestion - that is a different discussion. This one is about the political rubbish that surrounds Pres, Obama's Executive Order maneuver.  It is BS and I can only hope more Americans see through his smokescreen.

            GA

    2. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think the President was motivated by the knowledge that the Republican held house and senate would not act on immigration for the next two years. He know that for the last four years all they did was appeal Obamacare over and over and over. We know that if he waited until the new Republican majority is seated they will spend the next two years debating and blaming The President for not using executive powers or passing the laws in 2009,10, 11 12 or 13. The Republicans have been crying about their being ignored, now they got the power to be heard and lead, so lead on GOP. Express your ideas to solve America's problems stop blaming Obama, and express yourselves.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I pretty much agree with this; congress will not enact legislative immigration reform so Obama will give amnesty to any that are not criminals.  But it a to a very large degree nothing but political, too.

        But I disagree with the OP in that I found nothing of value in the "content" except that Obama will refuse to deport anyone for an unknown period of time.  There was no time limit on his plan - it could easily be for life.  He wants to send them to the end of the line, where they will languish for decades or more with our outdated and pitifully inadequate immigration system.  He repeatedly said we can't find the illegals, but that's obviously false (enforce the ID requirements for a job and take them off of all kids of welfare: you'll find them at the Rio Grande, headed south).  He took credit for the recession caused drop in illegals entering the country. 

        Bottom line: Obama wants immigration reform (most of us do) but can't make any changes in the law.  His decision was to refuse to enforce existing law, as is his legal (but not ethical) right to do, in the hopes that congress will act.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          “Oh contraire, mon frère." there is a time limit on his plan. It is three years... then three more, then three more, then....

          And he isn't sending them to the end of any line, he is just sending them to their own newly created Bull Pen, which unfortunately has no phone from the dugout to call for the next in line.

          Oops... I disagree with your "yes we can find them" ID idea. But it is a debatable point, so I will just say, barring your solution,  I do not want my America to be an America that mobilizes to "hunt down" those 10+ year illegals that I described in my response to Junko.

          I agree with your criticism of his "drop in illegals crossing the border" point.

          Bottom line, I agree that illegal immigration should not be tolerated or condoned, or rewarded. But concerning the reality of 10+ year good non-citizen illegal aliens - I think a little American compassion needs to be applied.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You misunderstand - if there are no jobs for them, we won't have to "hunt them down".  Just put some teeth into employment ID laws and enforce them.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ok, I agree with you. Juan has been here, and working for 10 years. Will his employer submit his ID to the Vericheck system, or just new hires? Will the enforcers of the Vericheck system look over 10 years of payroll data, or just new hires? Does Juan's 10 years of productive participation and law-abiding living have no bearing on his inclusion in the same category as Jose', the new border crosser?

              Therein lies the difference in my mind. Juan and Jose' represent two different categories of illegal immigrants.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, they are different.  Juan has ignored the law for 10 years, Jose for 2 months.  Should that mean it no longer applies to Juan because he got away with it for 10 years, including currently?  Juan has had ample opportunity to immigrate (perform necessary tasks for naturalization), that he chose not to means he no longer has to?

                And yes, the employer shall present ALL ID's to Vericheck.

                But let me ask another question.  If a litigant shows up in court with "dirty hands" in an effort to collect from a second party, courts have no obligation to even hear the case, let alone award him his money.  If an illegal obtains work with no ID or false ID does the employer have a (legal) obligation to pay for work received?  Does the concept of "dirty hands" apply or is labor a special case where illegal activities still require payment?

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  They are all the same. An illegal act on either should not be rewarded. In the case of the employer it is hard to fine him if he did ignore any suspicion of illegal permits or been lied to about status. Many employers in their zeal to make a buck overlook obvious signs of fraud and continue on hiring the individual. What the real question is what efforts should or can the government afford to chase down the employers intents? It is like a drug deal gone bad. The dealer rips off the buyer and the buyer punches the dealer. Who gets prosecuted for what?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You can't "overlook" "obvious" signs of frauds.  You can ignore it, but can't overlook it.

                    But that's why Vericheck needs expanded and improved.  It's hard to "overlook" it when the report comes back that the ID is stolen or nonexistent.  We require ID for a job; it's up to government to make the system workable rather than depend on employers to have a perfect eye for fraud.

                    In the example, the buyer gets prosecuted by the state, but neither can collect money or product from the sale agreement.

                2. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I disagree that Juan had any opportunity to become a legal immigrant while in place. He would have to leave our country and then apply legally - which given our current immigration "desirability" standards, would mean he would not be accepted.

                  There is no legal or moral validity to my thoughts and stance on this issue. But for me, the bottom line is that the mitigating circumstances of a life productively lived combined with the reality, (as I see it), that mass deportation is not a viable option, leads me to see Pres. Obama's Executive Order actions concerning long-time resident illegals as an acceptable compromise.

                  But... that does not mean that I like that he did it, or that I still don't think it is nothing but a political maneuver.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If he would not be accepted the inescapable conclusion is that the country does not want him.  You then say that because he paid a (usually small) portion of his families living costs we should make him a citizen anyway. 

                    I disagree.

                    Nevertheless I could accept Obama's actions as at least semi-reasonable...if there was a timeline to become citizens and end the farce.  As there is not, it is nothing more than a "live here free" card designed to force congress to act.

                    And I will add that until the reason for coming (jobs) is removed from the picture we will not stop the flood; even a "Berlin Wall" on our southern border won't do it and that is a solution that no one wants, will pay for or even accept.

          2. junko profile image79
            junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            GA Anderson : What 10+years illegals you described in what response you made to junko? I didn't know or saw a response to my comment by anybody other than Credence.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Here it is.



              Wellll.... you might have a valid point. But, from your angle, couldn't he just pop in with his executive action when he determined they weren't going to get it done?

              I would take your point and explain it as a move to get the Repubs to do stupid stuff from the start of their control of Congress - which would make them continue to look like obstructionists. Which I think would seal their fate for any serious consideration in 2016.

              As I said, it a shameful political play using a serious problem, (and its people), as a pawn.

              Wilderness, speaks to problems with the details of the plan, (which may or may not prove him to be prescient), but I am pissed at the shamelessness of the move.

              I am even more frustrated because I think he will get away with it. I see the Repubs doing exactly as he expects.

              GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wellll.... you might have a valid point. But, from your angle, couldn't he just pop in with his executive action when he determined they weren't going to get it done?

        I would take your point and explain it as a move to get the Repubs to do stupid stuff from the start of their control of Congress - which would make them continue to look like obstructionists. Which I think would seal their fate for any serious consideration in 2016.

        As I said, it a shameful political play using a serious problem, (and its people), as a pawn.

        Wilderness, speaks to problems with the details of the plan, (which may or may not prove him to be prescient), but I am pissed at the shamelessness of the move.

        I am even more frustrated because I think he will get away with it. I see the Repubs doing exactly as he expects.

        GA

    3. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I lean more toward junko's opinion. Yes, a great deal was political but we know everybody was kinda busy at the start of Obama's first 1st term, economic crises and such? The GOP could not seriously engage the issue and get the approval of its rightwing flank 2011-2015.

      Yes, the move was political, but gets the ball rolling where it otherwise would remain at a standstill, like healthcare.

      As I have said before, Obama did not invent the concept of 11th hour executive orders. I am sure that neither Bush2 or Reagan did them for solely altruistic reasons.

      As much as this is political, is as much that the GOP outrage is partisan in nature

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh no. You ain't get away with that "kinda busy" excuse. Especially as you want to use it in the context of economic crisis problem.

        If you were more honest and said it was because the Dems were "kinda busy" passing Obamacare, then I would still disagree about whether  the Pres could have done this executive action then, but I would at least agree with you that the Dems were "kinda busy."

        But you are right about your GOP points. That is why I am as frustrated as I am. I hate to see pure politics screwing with America's real priorities.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, GA, we all heard the president say that's congressional consensus is preferable to issuing an executive order. I and the president believed that everybody could have come together with a path forward before this executive order became necessary.

          You have to admit, either way this approach will goad congress to craft a more encompassing solution to this issue sooner rather than later?

          The GOP needs to handle all of this with "kid gloves" as Obama scored points with a major demographic. If their objection to Obama"s action comes off the wrong way, they will dig themselves into a deeper hole. You mentioned this and that is a big 10-4.

          1. Old Poolman profile image82
            Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Credence2 - Great to see you on here.  It is just too bad this could not have been done with a genuine concern for humanity as a whole.  Instead, it became nothing but a football in the game of politics.  No wonder nothing ever gets done in Washington, they are all afraid to do anything that might cost them a vote.

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Nice to see you, OP. True in today's world of expedience and political maneuvering, sincerely got lost along the way. It is a feature of life in modern times... Nice to go back to the days of passionate people  and great orators: Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, etc. I always wonder if these guys were resurrected what they would make of the Republic today that they were so passionate about. We have moved to Florida's Space Coast, just staying ahead of the lava that engulfs our town of Pahoa Hi.

              As always, stay well and come back often

              1. Old Poolman profile image82
                Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Credence2 - Is that a permanent or temporary move from Paradise 1 to Paradise 2?

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey, it is permanent for the forseeable future, it is just too bad that they retired the shuttle program. I would be chomping at the bit for a chance to watch a launch.  A reasonable cost of living, mild climate, extensive medical services help to sell us on the area.

                  1. Old Poolman profile image82
                    Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well good for you.  I wish you had been able to stop in Arizona for that steak and beer I promised you.  Perhaps one day we can still do that.  Good luck in your new location.

    4. Old Poolman profile image82
      Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Our President did a beautiful job of "reading" the speech prepared for him by his speech writers, but then he always "reads" a speech well.
      There is no doubt that our immigration system needs a complete overhaul, but not in the Political vein it is being used for.
      Many points in the speech sounded great, but as we have learned with ACA we might not be hearing the truth about any of this.
      It was interesting how he managed to blame the Republicans for all of the immigration problems.  Fortunately most low information voters don't watch any of his speeches anyhow.
      It will be very interesting to see how this issue developes and I will believe the part about tighter borders when I see it happen.  I have my doubts much will change in this regard.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        C'mon now, give credit where do. He does a lot more than "read" his speeches. Pres. Obama is one of the best orators I can remember hearing. I think he is as good, if not better than Clinton. (But I do think Clinton was more sincere)

        I certainly agree with your Obamacare comparison. If I didn't know there was a curtain to look behind, his speech would have had me lining up to join the choir, but since I do know about the machinations behind the curtain - I am just that much more a skeptic.

        As for how things develop... that is the worst part for me because I see the Repubs falling for the bait.

        GA

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this
        2. Old Poolman profile image82
          Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes he is an excellent orator.  My point was that little or none of this was coming from his heart or mind.  I firmly believe he has now set a trap for the Republicans and we can only wait to see if they are smart enough to avoid the trap.  I fear they will take the bait and end up looking like the bad guys if not the stupid guys.  I really just don't believe a darn thing Obama says anymore after all the lies he has told we citizens.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Amen. Where can I join the choir?

            GA

  2. CMerritt profile image77
    CMerrittposted 2 years ago

    My thought are probably biased, as I have already come to a very strong conclusion, that this POTUS is as wrong for this country as we could have ever imagined.

    I have learned that I cannot trust anything he says, which could be another topic in the future if we choose to.

    In a nutshell, I think Obama could have had this done well within the law, IF he would have complied simply with a republican form of a bill, which first and foremost declares we MUST secure our boarders.  He lied through his teeth when he said our boarders are more secure now than ever before in history.  Tell that to the citizens of Texas who have watch tens of thousands cross by right before their eyes.  Nearly 3,000 homicides by “Illegal Immigrants” in the last 6 years in the state of Texas.

    We need to CLOSE off the boarders….PERIOD.  We have the technology to do so.

    The part of Obama's pitch that I could not get pass, was when he said that he would assure that they (the undocumented citizens) would NOW be subject to our tax laws.  That they would now be forced to pay their fair share of taxes.  But by bringing them into the tax system, this means that they will also be afforded the benefits of our tax system for low-income earners. Which I’m sure the extreme vast majority of them would qualify for.

    According to the Internal Revenue Service, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997.  A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone.  Parents who earn less than the threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child and $5,460 if they have two children.” 

    Tell me HOW this helps grow our economy and shrink our deficits.  That was exactly what he said in his speech. 

    The only logical thing I can see that would benefit the POTUS, that it would guarantee 5 million more votes for the democrat party…..as they would not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

    I find him repulsive and very un-inspired to do what I should want to do, and that is fix this immigration problem.  It does indeed need fixed.

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It is a false problem. Obama's and the elite's (the multinationals that supported his campaign now want their return on investment) objective is, in a time where most countries aim at cheap labor, to acquire a cheap manpower. People from Detroit accepted a reduction of their salary in order to keep their work. What does it mean? That the US, Europe are privileging the death of the acquired privileges. In that logic, they open doors to manpower susceptible to be exploited.
        If Obama had humanitarian reasons, he wouldn't bomb children internationally. The immigration reform is a political tool. Everybody knows that the democrats lost the senate. It is a small gesture towards the latino electorate.
        Obama's policy was followed to the letter in the neocon agenda. We took Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, now Syria. He slashed the middle class. The policy is to impoverish the country in order to be competitive worldwide.
        Democrats, republicans are the same. They work for the people that will bribe them.

        1. Old Poolman profile image82
          Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your correct.  Anytime a politician accepts that first large campaign contribution he is bought and paid for.  They will accept money from anyone willing to pay them for their favors.  Why else would anyone spend a few million of their own bucks to get a job that pays 174K per year?

    2. Old Poolman profile image82
      Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well stated Chris.  Great to get your much valued opinion on this issue.

    3. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      CMerrit, I am glad to see you participating in the forums again.

      But... your generalities fall short of addressing particular topics.

      For instance;

      I am am fairly confident that the Obama team crossed every "T" and dotted every "i" in their research to determine if Pres. Obama's Executive Order is legal and within his Constitutional authority. The Repubs are screaming otherwise because they don't like what he has done. But my money is on the legal determination that he is acting within his powers - even if we don't like it.

      Yes, I agree, we do need to secure our Southern border. And yes, I too am distrustful of most things he says, But if you think the Republican bill that you wish he had "complied" with is a rational solution - you need to take a second look at the details of their plan. They are playing politics every bit as hard as he is.

      But, yep! Even though you are wrong about illegals being a net plus to our economy, (past studies have proven that they are), you are right about their additional burden to our safety net programs.

      Oops... Those five million "now documented" illegals won't become voters for a lot of years to come, if ever, so that piece of logic is as wrong as Pres. Obama's proclaimed motivation.

      Just sayin'

      GA

  3. mio cid profile image61
    mio cidposted 2 years ago

    This was a master move by Obama worthy of Bill and Hill ,and it will not only assure Hillary a path to the White house but also most likely recover the House and Senate by the Democrats in 2016.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Only if the man in the street actually wants another 5 million mouths on the welfare rolls and doesn't care how it is accomplished.  That's doubtful.

      1. Old Poolman profile image82
        Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Most won't care as long as it doesn't cut their entitlements.  If that happens they will be rioting in the streets.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, eventually the money runs out and no one will loan any more.  Happened in Europe and yes, they are rioting in the streets when their beloved entitlements slowly drain away as the country goes broke.

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I suspect we would gain enough taxpaying workers to offset any gains on benefit payments.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How?  It takes around $10,000 per person to minimally support a family, and that does not pay the cost of the services they get.  Schooling, fire and rescue, police, roads, military - it all has to be paid for (not just welfare, which I understood him to say would not be paid) and at low wages people are not able to pick up their fair share of the burden.  The vast majority of illegals in the country have no real skills that are useful in our society, which inevitably means a low wage; a wage that is insufficient to fully pay their way.

          So how do the minimal taxes they will pay cover the costs?

          1. Old Poolman profile image82
            Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Not to mention that most of them will qualify for "Earned Income Credits" on their tax returns.  That is the refund check they receive for taxes they never paid.  Depending on the number of children it can be quite a nice check that they receive.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, it can be "quite a nice check".  More, in fact, than they paid in taxes to start with, including sales and state taxes.

              1. Old Poolman profile image82
                Old Poolmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Just another income redistribution under the umbrella of the IRS.

        2. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Welllll.... The real answer to the "cost of illegal immigrants" question is... all over the place. Some prominent economists proclaim they add to our economy. Other sources say they do cost the US, (and the states), billions of dollars a year.

          A Google search allows you to pick a supporting link - based on your ideology.

          But... a 2013 Heritage Foundation study, which is very detailed, very well-documented, and seems very credible, tallies all costs, including; means-tested costs, (welfare programs), direct costs, (SS, Medicare, etc.), education, and population based costs, (fire, police, etc., roads bridges, etc.), and their bottom line is that each illegal household, on average, will cost our nation $24,700 per year.

          ... with an estimated life-time cost of almost $900,000 .

          Hmm... $900,00 x 5,000,000 = a lot of money

          GA

 
working