jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (39 posts)

Allow the smart workers to work hard - and be taxed

  1. ptosis profile image78
    ptosisposted 5 years ago

    "illegal immigrants under 30 who entered the U.S. as children and meet certain other residency and education requirements for the next two years. They also would be eligible to apply for work permits," - http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ … rants?lite

    Is this a good idea to get the cream of the crop of illegal aliens by allowing those without criminal records, went to college to work in order to tax them to death like the citizens?

    Since an aging population of baby-boomers - wasn't Obama  forced to allow young (under 30) illegal aliens to have work permits in order to keep the US afloat for another generation. - that this is the only way to pay off the national debt where every US citizens owes $45K?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We have plenty of under 30 year old citizens that are unemployed.

      The only thing this wannabedictator has done is to illegally sign an executive order to help himself get reelected.  He is not a KING!  He does not decide what this Nation is to do.  We have representatives of the people, its a little thing called Congress!

        Seeya in November NObama!

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        24% of American citizens age 16-19 are unemployed.

        There are a total of 5,391,000 unemployed Americans from age 16-29.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I tried to find this statistic earlier, thanks for posting.

        2. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And how many are homeless? Hmmm....

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not really sure.

            AHAR reported 1.6 million people who used homeless shelters in 2007. 22% of those were aged 18-30.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting. roll

              Not only does that stat become really scary when you truly understand the homeless problem in America, but frightening, ridiculous, absurd, pathetic.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Care to elaborate?

      2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Weird argument that an executive order is illegal. Bush gave the executive order to torture people worldwide. Was that illegal. No one seemed to think so. Truth is that tinally Obama is standing up and not looking so wimpish.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely!  Bush should be prosecuted for every incident of torture done due to his order!

        2. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes it was.

    2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Finallly, Obama has stopped acting like a wimp and exercised the power of the presidency. The bigger question is why couldn't he have stood up sooner for my neighbors? That's what we all want to know here in Southern California where Mexicans fill 45% of the community college classes and get straight A's. Looks like its just politics as usual. But there sure is a sigh of relief from all kinds of people I know.

    3. ib radmasters profile image60
      ib radmastersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
      The over ten million illegal aliens in this country, send most of their money back to Mexico. They get free medical, free education, and financial assistance paid for by the taxpayers.

      All of it done illegally as per the Immigration Laws, and the government doesn't enforce the immigration laws equally. Most of the immigrants that are trying to get into the country legally, spend money on attorneys, and other fees only to be turned away because of quotas.

      It is not fair and it is discriminatory to look the other way when illegals break the law and physically enter the country.

  2. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    This response is just off the top of my head; I haven't looked into the details of the federal budget or current policy for finding and deporting illegal immigrants.

    It seems to me, as with any program with a limited budget, one must prioritize.  I doubt there is enough money for the feds to locate and deport every illegal immigrant.  Doesn't it make sense to reserve the money to locate and deport the worst offenders, and not worry about young people who are here because of their parents decisions, who meet the stated criteria, and who, as the OP pointed out, would eventually be law-abiding taxpayers?

    Again, I don't know this for certain, but I have a feeling that this kind of prioritizing already takes place to a certain extent within the agency.  However, without this ruling, if a case like this is brought to their attention, they would have to spend time and money pursuing it.  Now, with this ruling, they can spend time and money on other, more important, cases.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would support a legally ratified Law.

    2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      PrettyPanther...the law was enforced rigidly and it resulted in thousands of people in ugly detention camps. What was happening is that the U.S. law allows an appeal of an exportation order. That's because so many legal residents have been picked up without IDs. Last week a U.S. born American of Mexican ancestry was shot dead near the border fence. So, you can't be to careful unless you think like a neo-Nazi and want to punish people. That is often the Republican's official stance. Fortunately, the next V.P. Marco Rubio wants to help make this work better because his parent immigrated from Cuba.

  3. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    What about the gardeners, the baby-sitters, the cooks, the house cleaners...? They don't deserve such a right? Obama's policy is not different from any other president who brain-drained grey cells from all over the world!

  4. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    Maybe I just don't get it, but has not our King just instructed federal law enforcement to disregard the law and not prosecute law breakers?  In practice he has made a new federal law without the approval or use of congress?

    This sounds much like his refusal to secure our borders while also refusing individual states the ability to do it themselves.  Or the judges that "interpret" the constitution and other laws according to their political affiliation.

    The King has spoken; let us all bend our knee to his power.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The funny thing is he entered office as a messiah and was downgraded to monarch! lol

      1. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LMAO smile

    2. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Would you support raising taxes to increase the budget for enforcement of violations of immigration laws?  Or, do you propose the money be taken from somewhere else?  If so, where?

      If you don't support increasing the budget, then do you support systematically prioritizing enforcement so that money is directed toward the worst offenders?

      1. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        PP,

        I cannot speak for all, but I do not think anyone disagrees with the idea itself, I think the problem is how it was done. Obama's action is clearly in violation of the constitution, the President cannot make laws. Whats next, everyone has to eat dog? I know that was a stab at Obama but it shows the point. There was a reason our founding fathers put in a checks and balance system. It was to not allow one person to dictate to everyone what to do.

        As for the idea,it claims to help 800,000 people. I do not know if that is true but let s say it is, what about the other 12 million, what about the parents of these kids, or the rest of their family? Should they stay while the rest goes?

        Additionally, what does helping the 800,000 do to help the over all problem? Nothing, the problem still exists. It was like pouring water in a bucket with a hole in it. Until you fix the hole you are wasting your time.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Obama's action is clearly in violation of the constitution, the President cannot make laws."

          Really?  Take a look at all of these presidents who have violated the constitution then.
          http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe … ition.html

          No, it does not solve the problem but it allows federal enforcement agencies to focus on a narrower range of offenses, which will save money and result in better enforcement of other offenders.

          An explanation of Executive Orders, and where the president gets the authority to execute them, is here:

          http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

          Excerpt:  "Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders."

          1. American View profile image61
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            PP,

            I guess you have not read my posts to often or any of my articles. I have said many times before under other presidents as well that the Executive Order is unconstitutional. Two times in history executive orders that were challenged made it to the Supreme Court,both times Executive Order that was issued was struck down, the most recent one occurred during the Clinton Administration.

            Constitution does not say anywhere that the President has a power called Executive Order. Scholars all agree that article 2 section 1, and section 3 of article 2 is just an interpretation in order to allow an Executive Order. Nowhere in the Constitution does the words executive order exist

            Article II - The Executive Branch Note

            Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

            The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

            Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

            (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

            The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

            No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

            (In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

            The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

            Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

            "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

            Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

            He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously, President Obama, as well as previous Presidents, do not care if American View believes all Executive Orders to be unconstitutional.  wink

              I'm no constitutional expert.  Did the Supreme Court find those two Executive Orders to be unconstitutional, but did not rule that all are unconstitutional?

              Personally, I am not fond of Executive Orders, but Obama's use of them is no different from other presidents and it is inaccurate to label him a dictator or king for exercising the same authority as previous presidents.

              1. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                PP,

                Presidents do not care what I think and for that matter do not care what you think. Therein lies the problem, since after all they're supposed to represent We the People.

                I'm no constitutional expert either, nowhere have I ever said I was. Wikipedia and a few other sources that I read did not post the reason the two executive orders were overturned, I just find it interesting that only two executive orders that were challenged made the Supreme Court in both times they were knocked down.

                You should not be fond of executive orders, they are dangerous slippery slope and can lead to really bad possibilities.

                " it is inaccurate to label him a dictator or king for exercising the same authority as previous presidents."

                Could you show me in this thread where I said Obama was a king or a dictator because he used executive orders, I would really appreciate that.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You didn't; others did.

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What we need to do is spend the money to stop illegal immigration, so we can stop spending the money on deporting people every year. Apparently it costs $12,500 per deportation, and last year we deported just under 400,000 illegals. So we're spending $5 billion per year just to throw people back out.

        I would support the US borrowing the money to put the more effective double/triple layer fencing along the whole border. It would only cost $4-$6 billion, so it is quite cost-effective.

      3. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Pretty, I would suggest that we stop supporting the illegals, freeing up large amounts of funding to promote lawful activity and get rid of lawbreakers.

        We can start by cutting school funds necessary to educate their children, including state funding to send them to college.  Move on to actually denying WIC, food stamps and subsidized housing and free that money, too.  A great deal could be done by using those funds to deny them jobs.

        It costs this country a huge sum of money every year to maintain the illegals here, and while they do provide higher income for their employers it doesn't even come close to what it costs the country to support them.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's difficult, because nobody wants to let someone starve or anything like that, but the US with its immigration problem can easily 'humanitarian' itself right into the dumpster.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You're right, of course.  As much as we would love to feed the world, America can't do it.  Not and feed ourselves, too.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm, not a single mention of penalizing employers who hire them, but you're willing to let children go hungry. 

          I cannot agree with this.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You misunderstand.  Most of the funding would go towards policing and charging employers that hire illegals.

            The answer to the illegal alien problem isn't simply deporting them or even fencing our borders.  It is to make the US an undesirable place to live if you don't have permission and that begins with the job market for illegals.

            There are other things that can help as well, but as long as we provide a better living between welfare and better jobs, they will continue to swarm the country.

  5. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Lincoln set the precedent for executive orders, Lincoln was also acting as if he were a dictator!

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are neccesary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government.

      Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.
      http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 … itutional/

      "While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution it has been a precedent for a President to issue Executive Orders that he deems to be necessary and proper."



      What part of this Executive Order should be considered necessary and proper?  Ordering the Justice Department to ignore LAWS!  Not in the presidents power, he could have had a Law legally ratified!

      "An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress"

      What Law is this executive order enforcing?

  6. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    When a conservative president signs an executive order outlawing abortion everyone on this forum will agree one hundred percent? 

    When is enough, enough.  Where do the people draw the line?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For most people, the line has been drawn for a long time. It's the party line.

      If Bush did something bad, Democrats will complain about it. If Obama did something bad, Republicans will complain about it. In either case, when it is pointed out to that person's supporters, they will generally point to someone else and say 'well, he did it too!'.

      It is sad. We're too busy trying to prove which side has the worst candidates, rather than insisting that we get good candidates.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is very frustrating that our government seems to believe they are above the Law.  As if their power is no longer derived from the consent of the people.  That the people need to bow to the authority of the government, not the other way around.

        Government is a parasite on the labor and wealth of the people and it acts as if it is a benevolent entity assisting its citizens.

        Up is down and wrong is right.

        We do not forgive, we do not forget!

        Expect us!

 
working