Obama Administration: Do Not Deport Some Young Illegal Immigrants
 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politi...ion/index.html

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...mmigrants?lite

****
Everything has pros and cons. It is possible the Obama Administration did this to support the American Dream of these young illegal immigrants and to beg for the Hispanic vote.

What say you, GC?

I like the policy, but I don't like the continuation of unlimited executive power begun under Dubya. Dubya threw out checks and balances whenever he felt like it, and I think that it's a dangerous thing to do.

This is just pandering. I'd like to see something more binding and comprehensive then this small bone thrown (that could just as easily be overturned at any time) to woo the Hispanic vote. Deferred action is just kicking the can down the road, which seems like the only thing politicians are willing to do these days.

I like the policy, too, but I feel that it is too transparent. I don't think that this is an issue that Obama particularly cares about. He really does care about those that are going to vote, however. This is another attempt to get votes.

OK, Obama. You know that many Republicans are on the fence this election. If you keep coming off as a really likeable President/candidate and Mitt continues to screw up, some of us may just vote for you. At this point, I feel that voting at all is just voting for the less of two evils.

I've felt this way in pretty much every Presidential election in which I've been able to vote.

It's sad.

Politics is always about finding the lesser of the evils.

It's definitely pandering, but isn't that what all politics is about? He put it out there right at the time when he needed support from the Latino voters. I agree with the policy, but I worry that the day Obama leaves office, the work visas for all of these young people will be revoked and they'll just be rounded up and deported. Hell, we'll even have them documented. When something is done by executive order, there is nothing stopping the next executive from undoing that order.

I am heartbroken every time I hear of a teenager being deported who knows nothing but the United States, with no experience in another "home" culture. Those children did not break the law.

Still, a guarantee against deportment reward the parents who brought those children here -- who DID break the law.

And while I appreciate the many amongst my acquaintances who say "let them pay full ride for school" or "join the military" to earn citizenship, as a military retiree, I note there are many who would be otherwise good citizens who could not or should not be in the military. Likewise, I do not believe college is the only way to demonstrate value to society.

So I'm torn. I dislike ANY administration which thinks it can circumvent rules by executive decree, and it seems to be more and more common over the last 20 years.

If immigration rules were as tight 100-110 years ago as they are right now, how many of us would be here? Would these "illegals" be illegal if it wasn't so difficult to get here legally? What's that the Statue of Liberty says? Oh yes, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” There are two ways to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.. make them legal or deport them. I'd rather see us go the first route, especially for children who didn't make the choice to be here.

As to the motive for making this decision now? Probably election year politics. That's politics. I still support the action, whether the motive is the right motive or not.

Every State which has recently passed legislation on illegal immigrants has seen a serious dip in their State GDP. You remove economic actors who are producing funds, and expending funds, you damage the economy. It's why slashing Medicare and Military budgets does not help initially but actually harms the National GDP. We have paid for these children to be educated in the U.S., if they are capable of adding to our workforce in a meaningful way we would be throwing money away by deporting them!

Also - Bump to bump down the spambots.

I would still be here.

But, I really try to avoid such responses to laws including immigration laws. I compare it to responding to child labor and child protection laws by saying "these U.S.A. laws either did not exist or were not so tight 100-300 years ago...so go ahead and let that 12 year old child do factory labor, have consensual sex, and get married...kids are just short adults therefore these laws are moot."

Societies shift; practices, policies, or laws are constructed; practices, policies, or laws are debated; practices, policies, or laws are changed; and the cycle of humanity continues.

I'm very glad I never heard anyone say that, because I would have hit them over the head with a pot. There are too many people joining the military for the wrong reasons (i.e. to pay for school or because they can't get another job) as it is. Forcing them to "earn" citizenship when they were brought here with no choice at age 3 or so is like making a child serve out his parent's prison sentence if the parent dies before it is completed.

When we were doing the amendments, my intro to American Government prof suggested that since the 13th amendment doesn't abolish slavery as punishment for a crime, we should enslave all illegal immigrants. 3/4 of the class laughed as if he was joking, but the other fourth was like "Wait, could we actually do that...?" sigh.

This is one of the issues that I honestly don't know much about, so I'm excited to read the responses in this thread and will get to googling.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...cpolitics&lite

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politi...on-126397.html

Aww I think it's cute in a bleeding heart kind of way. :p

I've noticed that a lot of people who participate in this debate don't understand the immigration system or how it works. The system is designed to be most advantageous to the nation, not the individual immigrant. It's this way in every country in the world, probably will always be this way too. Our country had a totally different set of needs 100-200 years ago. We needed immigrants to grow the population and settle and develop the country. Look at the Homestead Act. Should people still be entitled to free land today because they did it 150 years ago?

Since there was really no sort of welfare back then, the possibility of an immigrant becoming a public burden was nil. Back then if you didn't work, you didn't eat.

Today's "desired" immigrant needs to be educated (or willing to be), able to financially support him/herself and their dependents at entry, able to contribute to society and not be a threat to public safety.

But once again...
Our immigration policies are written to address to needs of our country, not the needs of the individual immigrant. While becoming the worlds refugee camp and feeding, housing, and supporting the worlds poor and downtrodden may give us all warm and fuzzies we just can't afford to do it with our currently broken entitlement system.