If you are a legal immigrant to the U.S. or have parents or grandparents that we

1. 81

   bethperryposted 10 years ago

   If you are a legal immigrant to the U.S. or have parents or grandparents that were legal...
   
   immigrants, how do you feel about President Obama's desire to "go it alone" without Congressional approval on immigration reform for the millions of undocumented people that came here illegally? As grandchild of legal immigrants - who had to wait their turn and respect U.S. laws before becoming legal citizens- I'm curious if anyone else fears Obama may be setting an unwise precedent if he signs an executive order to get what he wants?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 10 years ago

   If I was a legal immigrant who had to pay the money and go through all the red tape they did, I would be furious about this proposed amnesty.
   This whole issue seems to be in the hand of the insane right now with no real plan in mind as to how we will care for all of these people.
   Some Politicians feel this is a way to get more votes and could care less how this impacts the citizens of this country.  Shame on all of them.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing, Old Poolman.

      replyreport
3. 67

   Perspycaciousposted 10 years ago

   I have told my own congressmen the following:
   "If any foreigner was caught and deported for illegally entering the United States of America, that person should never be eligible for US citizenship. Our Border Patrol, law enforcement, courts, and INS have done the job we paid them to do, and to do otherwise would be a slap in the face for their efforts."
   Thousands, if not millions, are waiting to go through the legal process to gain admittance and citizenship legally.  Why should someone who violates the country's laws to sneak in and stay be granted expeditious citizenship, when even our interpreters and translators, allies, and others who risked their lives daily in Vietnam, Laos, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help our government, cannot be given even a visa to come to America and work toward citizenships they can rightly say we should help them earn?
   Any president of this country who does not uphold its laws, as he or she swore to do, should be subject to impeachment hearings.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for sharing, Perspycacious.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Perspycacious for president 2016! You have just earned my vote! At least you know what a President is supposed to do :-)

      replyreport
4. 0

   christiananrkistposted 10 years ago

   i hate the idea of legal/illegal immigration. if someone has the means to set up on empty land and is willing to live peacefully, why should they be stopped just for not following some pointless process?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for sharing, christiankist.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you mean to buy or rent a house I could go along with what you said.  If you mean to just camp out on anyones property I have to disagree with you.  I don't really know of any country in the world that allows people to just cross its borders.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That's true, Old Poolman!

      replyreport
   4. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      lol. no, I dont mean camp out on someone’s property. i mean if they have money to build or rent some place, then why not?

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Most all counties have regulations regarding the allowable length of stay for any non-citizens.  The countries I am familiar with have a 90 day limit then you have to leave for at least 72 hours.  We don't even know how many are here now.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i think thats ridiculous. what difference does it make if they were born over some other imaginary line? in my opinion it makes no difference at all. the majority of laws set by any country are usually to benefit and strengthen the gov's authority

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      christiananrkist - If a stranger moved his family into your home wouldn't you at least set a limit on how long they could stay?  Countries do need to know how many non-citizens are within their borders especially with  the terrorism we see today.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      your analogy doest work in this case. a person setting up a home on some unused land doesnt affect my life, like moving into my home would. citizens commit horrible evils. its about living peacefully, not the piece of dirt youre born on.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There is no land in this country that is not owned by someone or some government agency.  Moving onto "unused land" and building a home is called squatting.  So how would you feel if they built a shack in your backyard instead?

      replyreport
   10. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       still not the same thing. who is it hurting for a "non-citizen" to buy land and pay taxes to the mafia (government) and live peacefully without having to jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops. what gives them less rights , being born on other soil?

       replyreport
   11. 0

       Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       christiananrkist - Actually it has nothing to do with where you were born, it is all about citizenship.  Our laws are actually not as strict as you will find in many other countries.  We are just too far apart on this to keep this chatter going.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       where one is born has everything to do with it. if you are not born here, then you must jump through a bunch of unnecessary hoops to become a citizen. yes, my view on much politics is much different than a lot of people's. no arguments here.

       replyreport
5. 80

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   The unwise precedent here is a House of Representatives who have almost literally not done a day's worth of work for years. Executive action has to evaluated on a case by case basis, in my opinion. In general I tend to think it is better if we act through the legislature, but considering their inactivity, I have a hard time blaming the president for considering unilateral action.
   
   I mean congress is basically a dead tree stump in the middle of the yard and the grass needs mowing.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I can't disagree with what you said.  Congress needs to grow up and go back to work.  We have paid them huge salaries and benefits for years of nothing.  It is time we replace all or most of them with some who are willing to do their jobs.

      replyreport
6. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 10 years ago

   Actually before Obama became president this was seen as a "bi-patrician issue". Both Republicans and Democrats were seeking some type of  immigration reform to address the problem.
   It is estimated there are over 11 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and have been for decades. It is highly unlikely they will ever be rounded up shipped back which is why both parties were looking at various amnesty and path to citizen options.
   Senator McCain helped (write the 2007 immigration bill) supporting a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines.
   However during his run for president he said he would no longer vote for his (own) bill. He instead voted for a fence along the Mexican border. No doubt the Tea Party helped change his mind. 
   President Bush was in favor of having a "guest worker" program. He also signed a bill into law the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The bill passed both the house and Senate of congress (unanimously) and was signed on December 23, 2008.
   This bill was originally titled " "Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007" Under these laws, the Border Patrol is required to take "unaccompanied children" (who are not from Mexico) into custody, screen them and transfer them to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement."
   Today there are thousands of children in makeshift living quarters due to this law. Congress has decided to sit on it's hands. 
   According to this article from February 2014. "Speaker John Boehner has maintained that House Republicans "by and large" (support) immigration reform guidelines proposed at the GOP retreat earlier this month."  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-B … id/554606/ 
   Due to the political climate immigration reform is a "no win" scenario. The left is increasingly angry with President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief.” That’s because the total number of deportations during Obama’s tenure recently passed 2 million.  that pace puts him on track to “have deported more people by the end of 2014 than George W. Bush did in his entire eight years.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I read where "turnarounds" are included in that count of deportations.  That is where persons attempting to enter the US were "turned around" and sent back immediately.  Prior to Obama "turnarounds" were not counted as deportation.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Either way (liberals and Latinos) are unhappy with the numbers. It's a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" scenario for any president. No matter who is elected president almost 50% of the population which voted against them will be unhappy.

      replyreport
7. 73

   tsadjatkoposted 10 years ago

   
   
   Unwise precedent? I'd say breaking the law, circumventing the constitution is never wise and never a precedent.
   But the immigration situation can easily be solved to everyone's satisfaction but it isn't because both parties need the issue to bat the other on the head with.
   
   All they have to do is first close the borders - that should make republicans happy.
   Then once that is achieved with no shenanigans like they pulled on Reagan all immigrants on the waiting list to legally enter America should be processed entirely and all who meet our requirements should be allowed in to become citizens. Currently we allow about 700,000 immigrant to enter the US every year. I don't know what the backlog waiting legally is but whatever it is process them in, I don't care if it is 5 million. Then allow any illegal immigrant or "undocumented worker" who is here a grace period to register truthfully and get in line to go through the legal immigration process.
   This way no one who is trying to enter legally is pushed to the back of the line, they are all in and illegals are then given the opportunity to legally enter without cutting in front of anyone else as long as they register where they are living, their jobs etc. Once all illegals are registered at end of the grace period process them based on their records (should make Democrats happy) so that no criminals are given a free ride and then reopen immigration to the world after all illegals are processed.
   With the border closed illegal immigration will stop, all desirable illegals will be here legally and without cutting in front of any applying for citizenship legally. It may take a year or so for this process to conclude at which time enforce the laws on the books for any illegals who did not conform.
   This is fair and equitable to everyone and both parties and whichever party comes up with this plan (of course it needs tweaks) will be seen as solving the immigration problems  so it would be best if it were a bipartisan endeavor....well so much for that idea, can never happen.Consequently we will always have this immigration problem and nothing Obama can do will fix it, only make it worse as we are seeing already.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would agree with this plan.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Perspycaciousposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I can accept this, too, and I want a president who upholds our laws, not one who thinks he has the authority to make his own.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for sharing, tsadjatko. I wish people in Congress, the Senate and the WH showed as much common sense!

      replyreport
   4. 80

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I completely disagree with this plan. Eliminate the border. Immediate amnesty. Export opportunity. Legalize drugs.

      replyreport
8. 60

   highdruidposted 10 years ago

   can I say I am always dismayed at this question and questions like it, it seems to me the only people  who have a right to question  immigration in a America are the native Americans , after all they lost the most, yet we hear the racist  and  latent racists  use all that is at their disposal to create hate , why is that ?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Highdruid, as a matter of fact, my husband is a Native and he says the current immigration problem is just a repeat of what happened to his people, and a repeat that we shouldn't be allowing to happen.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Your husband in right on the money with this one.  This is exactly what happened to the real Native Americans and it could happen again.  Thanks for sharing this with us.  Your husband is a wise man.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you OP. And yes, I think he is, too

      replyreport