June 19, 2012

"Most voters don’t think the government is aggressive enough in deporting illegal immigrants but..."

"... agree with President Obama’s decision to allow young people brought here illegally who meet certain criteria to avoid deportation."
... 71% think someone brought to this country illegally when they were under 16 should be allowed to apply for a work permit rather than be deported if they have no criminal record, have graduated from high school or have served in the military. Twenty percent (20%) believe they should be deported anyway. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

92 comments:

Robert said...

Check out Kaus' current screed. He links to a site that links to the new policy. Obama doesn't even put his name to it. It's not an EO. Gives plausible deniability when it morphs into something far more than publicized.

t-man said...

I had a very odd cab ride this morning, the driver was from Cuba and has been here for 40 years. He said his wife was from Mexico and immigrated legally to the U.S. He was livid about Obama's actions.

TMink said...

Shame that none of that is what the President's unconstitutional power grab actually does.

Just words, just phrases, more lies.

Trey

Carol said...

It seems too much like the 1986 amnesty..."well, hell, they're already here, whaddya gonna do.." IOW shameful lazy disloyalty to US citizens, in the name of expedience.

And I don't think the background checks will be all that rigorous, either.

Balfegor said...

no criminal record, have graduated from high school or have served in the military.

Wait, is this a series of three, pick one? Because that looks like it as written. Are people really okay letting illegal immigrants with criminal records stay in the US just because they finished high school? It would make sense to me for it to be a two stage requirement:

1. No criminal record
2. EITHER graduated from high school OR served in the military.

And since I think you have to have graduated from high school to serve in the military, it's really just "2. Graduated from high school."

Also, as Kaus points out, that isn't what the new policy says anyhow; it's just how it's being sold. Dishonestly.

Anyhow, I'm fine letting that discrete class stay, but I think they should have to pay a heightened tax levy in exchange for amnesty for the next 5 years or something. That won't make up for the grotesque unfairness to all the law abiding immigrants who waited in line and jumped through all the hoops (like many of my relatives, just as an example), but at least it's something.

Andy R. said...

This might shed some light on the poll results.

"Asshole Test
I think a reasonable test of whether someone is an asshole without any hope of improvement is if you sit them down and explain that:

1) People without the legal right to live and work in this country often bring their kids here with them.

2) Those kids are often quite young when they arrive. You know, babies.

3) Such kids also are undocumented.

4) In many cases they grow up not or barely speaking the language of their home countries, depending on their age and particular circumstances.

5) Given whole lack of documentation thing, most of these kids have never been to the country that their parents came from and don't know any of the family, if any, that are still there.

6) Upon becoming adults, their work and educational opportunities are complicated and limited.

If the person's response is, "they're illegal, deport them," then you know you've found an asshole."

Most people aren't assholes.

Balfegor said...

He said his wife was from Mexico and immigrated legally to the U.S. He was livid about Obama's actions.

What self-respecting immigrant wouldn't be? It's like all the people who were prudent and bought mortgages they could afford who then had to subsidize the profligates and scofflaws that lied their way into mortgages they couldn't. The reward for playing by the rules is that the government screws you over and rewards the cheaters.

The difference here is that there's a subset of the people targeted by the administration's new policy who aren't morally culpable for their violation of our sovereignty. But it's only a subset, not the whole set.

ndspinelli said...

I am shocked my opinion is majority. AndyR is sure to drive up that 20% just by his asshole comments and nature. He's the lone reason I'm against gay marriage.

Ann Althouse said...

@Balfegor You're right about the ambiguity in the wording, which is in the question asked: "Suppose someone was brought to the country illegally when they were under 16. If they have no criminal record, have graduated from high school or have served in the military, should they be allowed to apply for work permits or should they be deported?"

I think your 2-stage interpretation is what's intended.

n.n said...

He has handled it precisely wrong and it is not limited to subverting our representative process and disenfranchisement of American citizens.

Before providing amnesty of any kind it is necessary to mitigate or prevent unmeasured immigration (i.e. illegal); define "natural born" citizenship as a legal status conveyed to a child by a mother and father who are citizens; remove all social benefits and other incentives offered to individuals who do not comply with our laws; establish English as the official language.

As it is, his policy will serve to further displace American citizens and legal residents and will sponsor progressive corruption of individuals and society.

Then there is the matter of implicitly condoning the corruption in nations of Central and South America, Africa, etc., which, presumably, was the impetus for certain people to leave.

Balfegor said...

Re: Carol:

It seems too much like the 1986 amnesty..."well, hell, they're already here, whaddya gonna do.." IOW shameful lazy disloyalty to US citizens, in the name of expedience.

I think the appropriate policy for illegal immigrants already here is just to ignore them until they break a law, and then deport them once they do. There's a huge number, yes, but they're also a problem that will die off in a generation or two, after which their children will be Americans.

The thing to do is to choke off the supply of new illegal immigrants, and the easiest way to do that is just to make it harder to sneak into the country. I'm a fan of just putting up a physical wall and patroling it. Maybe devoting some energy to tracking down people who overstay their tourist/student visas. But people who entered the country legally and overstayed their welcome seem less culpable to me than people who are sneaking in, so I'd set that as a lower priority.

Andy R. said...

Also, this is pretty funny: "Mitt Romney Still Has No Position On Obama’s Immigration Bombshell"

Romney knows how popular the Obama policy is, but he also knows the base of his party is full of racists.

Geoff Matthews said...

No amnesty until the fence is completed.

The Drill SGT said...

The Dream Act part can have supporters and detractors.

The Imperial Presidency that can ignore the part of the oath that says:


I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States

should be a concern to Democrats as well.

PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 illegals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses. What happens when the next President or the one after him, decides to alter the policy.

PPS: or for that matter, a Court orders the policy undone.

Craig said...

I'm thinking about exhuming the remains of my great great grandfather from the Civil War section of the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery because he didn't live long enough to become a naturalized American. He was still a citizen of Prussia when he died. I'd take his remains there if Prussia was still on the map.

Scott said...

Romney knows how popular the Obama policy is, but he also knows the base of his party is full of racists.

You mean, even more racist than your average West Virginia Democrat?

Andy R. said...

PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 illegals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses.

Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.

Michael K said...

" People without the legal right to live and work in this country often bring their kids here with them."

What would we do without this genius?

They also bring their parents, their aunts and uncles, their cousins, etc. Chain migration is destroying England as whole Pakistani villages reconstitute themselves and bring their laws, morals, culture, etc.

There is a trend that way with the Mexican immigrants who go back and forth frequently. A fence would stop the frequent back and forth. We have less problem with immigrants from farther away who can't commute.

Lem said...

Government by fiat.

Welcome president Hugo Chavez.

Scott said...

"Don't call people 'illegals'. It's shitty and dehumanizing."

Okay, how about "criminals?" Or, "immigration scofflaws?"

MadisonMan said...

How can you serve in the military if you're here illegally? That puzzles me.

Scott M said...

Also, this is pretty funny: "Mitt Romney Still Has No Position On Obama’s Immigration Bombshell"

Also, this is pretty funny: Andy R Still Has No Position On Obama's Blatant Flip-Flop From Last Year's Declaration That There Are Laws On The Books He Must Uphold.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to any pol that hasn't endorsed/detracted Obama's announcement on Friday, assuming their heads are still spinning in disbelief.

Balfegor said...

Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.

What would you prefer? "Immigration cheats"? That's fine with me. I know people want to elide the difference between immigrants who followed the rules and showed appropriate respect for the US and her laws, on the one hand, and illegal immigrants who disrespected us and ignored our immigration procedures on the other. But pretending these two groups are the same is grossly offensive to legal immigrants.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Just curious - have any of those in favor of this policy given an opinion on how many total immigrants (legal + illegal) should be allowed into the country each year?

Chip Ahoy said...

¡Hail Ceasar!

* air elbow bump *

Michael K said...

"PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 illegals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses. What happens when the next President or the one after him, decides to alter the policy. "

What makes you think those addresses, or birthdates and age on entering the country, are accurate ? Is ICE going to check records ? What records ? The majority of these people coming in are illiterate in Spanish, let alone English.

At the LA County Hospital some years ago, somebody decided to do a study that involved checking on patients' current address and status. Guess what ? Nobody had given an accurate address ! Bills go to those address !

Illegals (and they are illegal, hat boy) do the same thing.

Balfegor said...

Re: MadisonMan:

How can you serve in the military if you're here illegally? That puzzles me.

I think foreigners can serve in our legions. We're on the way to Rome reborn.

Scott said...

Government by Fiat. Every factory has TVs so the assembly workers can watch the soccer matches. And the car starts rusting on the showroom floor.

(Actually I drove a Fiat 500 rental car last year. It was a lot of fun, and seemed well screwed together. Made in Mexico though.)

RonF said...

I can go along with setting up a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who were brought here as minors by their parents. But their parents should NOT.

If someone has come here and has a) been here for some lengthy period of time, b) had a good work history and c) not had a criminal record, I could consider giving them permanent resident alien status. But NO CITIZENSHIP.

Freder Frederson said...

I had a very odd cab ride this morning, the driver was from Cuba and has been here for 40 years.

I hope your Cuban cab driver (and you) realize that if immigrants from all countries were treated the same as those from Cuba, we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all, because setting foot on American soil results in legal residency being granted.

Rick Caird said...

MadisonMan asks:

"How can you serve in the military if you're here illegally? That puzzles me."

You can't. Unless, that is, you lie and forge documents. That is part of the idiocy of what Obama has done.

I am also looking forward to these so called beneficiaries of the new policy providing documentation of their presence here along with the name and addresses of their parents. It is an interesting concept: "become legal and deport your parents at the same time". I can see how it would appeal to some kids.

The Drill SGT said...

Andy R. said...
Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.


PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 foreign criminals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses.

There, fixed :)

MadisonMan said...
How can you serve in the military if you're here illegally? That puzzles me.


Only if you swear falsely on the application.

The Drill SGT said...

PPPS: Though the sound bite is about "innocents brought here through no fault of their own", apparently it also applies to teenage foreign criminals (isn't that better :) who crossed the border on their own. Think MS 13

CJinPA said...

71% think someone brought to this country illegally when they were under 16 should be allowed to apply for a work permit rather than be deported if they have no criminal record

That's fine. Or not. Means nothing if we don't insist that nations respect our borders.

bgates said...

In many cases they grow up not or barely speaking the language of their home countries

Not a problem. I've been told for decades that the United States is uniquely backward and reactionary enough to insist everyone speak the same language. Send these kids home and they'll be embraced and celebrated as linguistic minorities contributing to the cultural diversity of their native lands.

If I hated brown people, I'd say we should send Andy to Mexico.

bgates said...

Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.

Says the guy who posted the asshole test. Shut the fuck up, you worthless subhuman asshole.

CJinPA said...

The fine print, from the Daily Caller:

(1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement. 2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.”

This issue is difficult enough without the deception.

Lem said...

A year ago.. Obama was not yet running for reelection.

President Barack Obama reiterated his call for comprehensive immigration reform Thursday at a meeting with prominent Hispanic celebrities, including actresses Eva Longoria and America Ferrera, and news anchor Jose Diaz-Balart of Telemundo.

Obama told the group that he favors enacting a comprehensive immigration reform that would create a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, most of whom are Hispanic. But Obama also said that he could not change the law by himself and would have to leave action to Congress. “More voices are needed to elevate the immigration debate beyond the politics, false debates, and rhetoric that have dominated the issue,” the White House said in a press statement.


It turns out he could change the law by himself.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...



Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.


You're so stupid it should be illegal for you to comment here.

Illegals.

Jay said...

Romney knows how popular the Obama policy is

And as we know, what is popular is always right and what is right is always popular!

Right?

CJinPA said...

I think a reasonable test of whether someone is an asshole without any hope of improvement is if you sit them down and explain that:

A nation is defined by its borders. You will respect my borders. If you don't, I have the right to send you back, even if you entered as a 16-year-old baby. I might not, or I might. Depends on my mood and how nicely you ask to stay.

If their response is to take up a foreign flag and march in your street making demands, they're assholes.

TMink said...

Don't call them illegals? Why do you fear a correct and applicable lable? The truth often hurts, but that so does a shot. You face the truth, discomfort and all, to reap the benefits.

Or not and suffer the consequences. See the lies about people who respect the law being racist and such hurt the liar more than those lied about. God built consequences into the world. You can think of it as karma.

Trey

Hagar said...

The DoJ went to court claiming that the State of Arizona was interfering with their prerogative to pick and choose between laws they wish to enforce.

Now President Obama goes to just issuing decrees on his own, in effect saying, "I don't need no steenkin' Congress!"

This is what the arguments should be about; not whether DREAM Lite is good policy or not. That is for Congress to decide, not the President.

My personal position is that we first need to get the Democrats to agree that the word "illegal" means just that. Then we can have a debate about what is to be done about the "illegals."

And yes, something needs to be done, and no, not very many are going to go back where they came from.

Andy R. said...

Don't call them illegals? Why do you fear a correct and applicable lable?

I'm not saying not to call them "illegal immigrants". If you want to use "illegal immigrants", I'm not going to complain. It's the difference between referring to them as illegal based on immigration status and saying their whole identity is illegal.

People who are illegal immigrants have consistently said they find that the label you have applied to them ("illegals") is a slur and shitty and dehumanizing, You can do with that information whatever you please.

CJinPA said...

People who are illegal immigrants have consistently said they find that the label you have applied to them ("illegals") is a slur and shitty and dehumanizing,

Immigrants who waited in line could not be reached for comment.

Nora said...

I don't think that people who responded positively realised that when you give legal rights to stay in the country for one member of the family, you potentially allow all the family to stay as well, including the parents that brock the law as well.

It's basically an amnesty to families that stayed in the country long enough for their kid to finish a school. And for this requirement to work a couple of years was enough.

Jay said...

People who are illegal immigrants have consistently said they find that the label you have applied to them ("illegals") is a slur and shitty and dehumanizing,

People who are gay have often said they wished they were straight.

Ergo, gays wish they were straight.

traditionalguy said...

This is a classic Mercy triumphs over Law situation.

The King's conscience ( and one of his Chancellor's jobs) was granting mercy petitions which became the source of our Equity Jurisdiction. A Mercy act of the King could be sought as a needed remedy of a Law, but always predicated on being through no fault of the petitioner himself.

In a real sense what Obama I has gone and reenacted here is what a good KING should do.

And the Parliament once again raises another attitude about King's over-riding their Laws.

But it's a political act because Obama is a closet Muslim, and Muslims despise mercy as a weakness.

Paul said...

In Mexico if you are caught illegally in the country YOU GET JAIL.

In Honduras if you are caught illegally in the country YOU GET JAIL.

In Brazil if you are caught illegally in the country YOU GET JAIL.

In fact in 99 percent of the countries YOU GET JAIL.

But here, in the U.S., you get to vote...

Hagar said...

The policy about "anchor babies" is just that, a policy based on a pious paragraph in the existing immigration law, which badly needs to be thrown out and replaced by a rational immigration act, not written by State Department lawyers..
It has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Petunia said...

If the illegal alien has no criminal record AND served in the military for four years AND was honorably discharged, OR is still serving, then let him/her stay.

Otherwise, no. The situation is the fault of the PARENTS, not the U.S.

And Obama's just doing this to pander for Latino votes. Any other interpretation is completely naive.

CWJ said...

What makes anyone think that 71% is a true reflection of support. Not only have people pointed out that the question does not reflect the actual policy, but how many of the answers are Bradley Effect.

Who wants to appear hard hearted or, in Andy R's world, an asshole?

Balfegor said...

Re: Andy R:

I'm not saying not to call them "illegal immigrants". If you want to use "illegal immigrants", I'm not going to complain.

Ah, that's a much more reasonable position. I don't generally agree with people who object to labels as dehumanizing. E.g. some people are now teaching their mixed race children to get huffy that they should be called "double" rather than "half" -- I think this is stupid and if someone called me "double" I would be sorely tempted to lash out at him for lumping me together with those twits. Rather than this euphemistic "double" rubbish, I'd even prefer the full on "half-caste" or "mixed blood" (混血/혼혈). But I realise there are others with tenderer sensibilities on these sorts of points, and I'm fine with accomodating them thatfar.

Sigivald said...

Don't people who've served in the military get to become citizens anyway?

(I checked - yes, they do, at least if they bother to ask for naturalization while in the service for over a year, or soon after leaving.

And recently, even just after completing Basic Training, or at any time while serving under fire, if I'm reading the State Department's page right.

Me, yeah, I have no problem letting someone with an honorable discharge naturalize ahead of the line.

Serving in the armed forces demonstrates a devotion to the Country more than sufficient to earn citizenship.)

Scott M said...

Serving in the armed forces demonstrates a devotion to the Country more than sufficient to earn citizenship.)

Not to mention the fact that while military culture is different than civilian culture, it's a sub of the culture the immigrant is wanting to become a part of. Being the military is a very structured way of acclimating/assimilating.

Plus, you get to blow shit up.

edutcher said...

Most voters don't know yet what this entails, but people like Mickey Kaus (and it's not a "screed") will tell them.

Then we'll see about the 71%, especially after the next round or two of unemployment figures.

Interestingly, only 49% of Hispanics say this will make them more likely to vote for President Choom.

Andy R. said...

This might shed some light on the poll results.

"Asshole Test
I think a reasonable test of whether someone is an asshole without any hope of improvement is if you sit them down and explain that:

1) People without the legal right to live and work in this country often bring their kids here with them.

2) Those kids are often quite young when they arrive. You know, babies.

3) Such kids also are undocumented.

4) In many cases they grow up not or barely speaking the language of their home countries, depending on their age and particular circumstances.

5) Given whole lack of documentation thing, most of these kids have never been to the country that their parents came from and don't know any of the family, if any, that are still there.

6) Upon becoming adults, their work and educational opportunities are complicated and limited.

If the person's response is, "they're illegal, deport them," then you know you've found an asshole."

Most people aren't assholes.


And who has explored more assholes than Hatman?

PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 illegals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses.

Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.


No, it's justs true.

Thorley Winston said...

If I were someone who wanted a special allowance in the law for minors who came into the country illegally like the “DREAM Act,” I’d be pretty upset with President Obama for doing an end-run around Congress. What’s he’s accomplished is a temporary “amnesty” that will likely only last for the remainder of his presidency (which could be less than seven months) that can just as easily be undone by the next President while at the same time solidifying opposition in the next Congress to anything more permanent like the “DREAM Act.” Obama may get a short-term gain in the polls but it will be at the expense of the long-term goals of the constituency that he’s pandering to.

The Drill SGT said...

Scott M said...
Serving in the armed forces demonstrates a devotion to the Country more than sufficient to earn citizenship.)

Not to mention the fact that while military culture is different than civilian culture, it's a sub of the culture the immigrant is wanting to become a part of. Being the military is a very structured way of acclimating/assimilating.


I think one could fairly make a distinction between Legal green card holders, who can enlist, and foreign criminals, who acn't, except by committing yet another crime...

as for the basic thought. Think of it as Language and cultural immersion training. people pay big bucks to learn a language as fast as a Drill SGT teaches it. or as

Gunnery SGT Highway once said.

"I don't to get my ass shot off in some strange land because you don't Habla... Comprende?"

Private Quinones:

"Yes Gunney!!! "

Scott M said...

What’s he’s accomplished is a temporary “amnesty” that will likely only last for the remainder of his presidency (which could be less than seven months) that can just as easily be undone by the next President

Why...do you realize what you're suggesting, man!?! You're seriously saying that a stumbling administration, facing the real possibility of suffering epic butt hurt (hat tip, GM) come November, would make this announcement SOLELY FOR SHORT-TERM POLITICAL GAIN!!??!!

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Nora said...

I don't think that people who responded positively realised that when you give legal rights to stay in the country for one member of the family, you potentially allow all the family to stay as well, including the parents that brock the law as well.

It's basically an amnesty to families that stayed in the country long enough for their kid to finish a school. And for this requirement to work a couple of years was enough.
___________________________________

Exactly!
After you let the kids in,you're going to kick the parents out?
(only shitty heartless brutes would do that)

After you let the kids, and mom and pop in, your not going to let grandma and grandpa in?

Then what about their half-sibs across the border? Are you against reuniting families? If you're against this you really are an asshole.

The Drill SGT said...

Thorley Winston said...
Obama may get a short-term gain in the polls but it will be at the expense of the long-term goals of the constituency that he’s pandering to.


except of course to provide La Migra with up to date names and addresses.

ed said...

Yeah the old bait-and-switch. They say it only applies to young children brought in by their parents and who lived in the USA for 5+ years and have a high school diploma.

In reality it is like a Monty Python skit and it morphs into any damn body and Obama doesn't give a shit who it is.

ed said...

@ Andy R.

"I think a reasonable test of whether someone is an asshole without any hope of improvement is if you sit them down and explain that:"

Here's my fucking "asshole test";

Are you intelligent enough to understand that activists work very hard to alter the OFFICIAL definition of terms so the most innocuous statements actually don't mean a fucking thing?

Or are you Andy R.?

ed said...

What I find amusing about this "amnesty" is there is this enormous stack of official federal documents filled out by individuals without any coercion where they self identify as illegal aliens, fill out their name and address and then sign them.

And if I were a President looking to deport some people ... where would I find a stack of official signed documents that frankly resemble confessions?

ed said...

"It's the difference between referring to them as illegal based on immigration status and saying their whole identity is illegal. "

They are illegal. And how are they immigrants? Most of them routinely cross the border to go home. Are they participants in the immigration process?

Italians who went through Ellis Island participated in the immigration process of the time. They -immigrated-. The immigration process of our time is clear and these people aren't participants. So they obviously aren't -immigrants- in any way, shape or form to anyone who isn't an asshole.

That makes them aliens since they are citizens of a foreign nation and are not participants in our immigration process.

And since they are here illegally that makes them illegal aliens. Well to anyone who isn't an imbecilic asshole.

Q said...

brought to this country illegally when they were under 16


That is NOT what the edict does. As Micky Kaus describes it -


1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement. 2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.” It turns out “continuous residence” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless,” says CIS’s Jon Feere. As an illegal immigrant you can go back homeabroad for multiple 6-month stints during those five years–but, if precedent holds, in Janet Napolitano’s eyes you will still “know only this country as home.”


Last, it does not apply only to "kids" or "children" or "teenagers". You can be thirty years old and still be covered.

Hagar said...

The White House intent with this announcement was just to spike Senator Rubio's "DREAM Lite" act, which he is supposed to be ready to introduce in the Senate this week.

I am with the commenters above who have pointed out that this is really a low blow to "immigration reform" for no bigger purpose than that.

ed said...

@ Andy R.

"Romney knows how popular the Obama policy is, but he also knows the base of his party is full of racists."

What "bombshell"? It's the most idiotic plan ever conceived.

It offers absolutely no protections to those it purports to "help" since it is, at best, by executive order and, at worst, by bureaucratic fiat. Which means the next President can simply undo it before breakfast.

Additionally those that participate effectively confess to being in the USA illegally, self identify as illegal aliens and offer up a signed document attesting to this. Would a deportation order even need a judges approval?

On top of that shit sandwich those who participate get to look for a job in an economy that offers up to 40% unemployment for that age bracket. So they get a work visa when there isn't any work to get.

And, just to make this complete, Obama is adding millions of new workers into an economy that cannot employ the citizens already looking for work. That will make it really popular with the already unemployed.

Well that's a good fucking plan.

Q said...

Don't call people "illegals". It's shitty and dehumanizing.


While we're at it, let's not call dumbasses "dumbassess", let's not call crooks "crooks", let's not call convicts "convicts", and let's not call socialists "socialists". Because it hurts the feelings of the people in question.

Q said...

I had a very odd cab ride this morning, the driver was from Cuba and has been here for 40 years. He said his wife was from Mexico and immigrated legally to the U.S. He was livid about Obama's actions.


I'm not seeing the "odd" part of that, unless you're one of those people (we call them "Democrats") who believe that everybody must vote in accordance with their race and ethnicity.

Scott M said...

Last, it does not apply only to "kids" or "children" or "teenagers". You can be thirty years old and still be covered.

EXACTLY. We all know, from Obamacare, that kids stop being kids at 26, not 30.

Cedarford said...

The successful "Narrative" of the progressive Jews in the media, Democrat Party, hispanic activists and the usual Open Borders crowd tries to implant the meme:

"These children, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN!!!, just ended up here. How can you PUNISH THEM!!!"

It plays well with the "fair-minded American" - who thinks "awwwwwwww, why not be compassionate??"

Unfortunately, few really think this through.

1. How does this affect The Children, who through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN - had parents who respected our laws and wait in legal immigration application lines in Columbia, Nigeria, Romania, the Philippines? Without free US medical care, free food, free school, free housing...Why only reward children of immigration lawbreakers? Shouldn't we amnesty all those abroad who have put in immigration papers?

2. What about the US citizen child, who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN - have seen their parents made unemployed or wages severly depressed because of millions of illegals?

3. What of those that abide by the law and wait to get legal approval to immigrate...again seeing scammers and lawbreakers that jumped the line AGAIN being rewarded with citizenship?? How does this make them feel like anything but fools for not going the fake refugee claim, smuggled by coyotes, overstay a student or tourist visa route??

4. Shall we reward the fruits of other crimes where the beneficiaries of their parents illegal acts are the INNOCENT Children, who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN got nice new cars on their 16th birthdays and grew up in a mansion obtained by mommy's Wall STreet Frauds...or daddy's scamming of medicaid through 3 health care front companies?

Why should those innocent children suffer by having to give back the BMW or move from the mansion they grew up in????

5. If we erode respect for the law - and reward lawbreakers - why shouldn't blacks be free to form flash mobs and take what they want...which through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN...their parents can't give them?? Why should a white adult report any income he is reasonably certin the IRS can't trace? (Especially if they oppose numerous areas where the IRS funds the government to spend in - they oppose)

Hagar said...

Mission accomplished.

"The Hill" says Senator Rubio has dropped his pland to introduce a "DREAM Lite" act in view of the President's announcement.

TMink said...

It sucks being an illegal I guess. Of course it would suck worse being an American illegal in Mexico or any other major country of origin, but it even sucks being illegal in America.

It just doesn't suck quite enough.

Trey

Fen said...

oh hell, why not. We have a $13 trillion debt and $65 trillion in unfunded entitlements. Lets just let the entire world in for one last party before we flame out.

Fen said...

"Don't call people 'illegals'. It's shitty and dehumanizing."

Too. Fucking. Bad.

"Don't call rapists "rapists". Its shitty and dehumanizing.

Gotta love the audacity.

Fen said...

I'm not saying not to call them "illegal immigrants".

You want me to expend 3 more syllables on people who couldn't be bothered to wait in line like the rest of us?

Fuck off.

leslyn said...

I thought the reaction here would be about the opposite, but I was way underestimating. The reaction is so feral I fear y'all will start eating their young, and each other.

Scott M said...

Why eat our own young when there are perfectly good undocumented young?

PatCA said...

I think it really will end up as anyone under 30...or who looks like they are under 30...or say they are under 30...or who once were 30.

It's amnesty, folks.

Obama to Legal Immigrants: Drop Dead.

DADvocate said...

The real purpose of Obama's proposal is getting Obama re-elected. Whether you agree with him or not, you know this is why he endorsed gay marriage, and why he's doing this. As a narcissistic sociopath, his only true care is how he can manipulate people into voting for him. If he thought he'd get more votes by lobbing a drone on their heads, he'd do that.

Hagar said...

This executive order turns out be an executive order that is not an Executive Order, but only a memo, not from the Justice department, but from Janet Napolitano to her myrmidons in the DHS, and so convoluted and hedged about that it will be just about impossible to take action against.

Federal employees in all agencies will understand and act on it, but fighting this will be like fighting a fogbank.

And it still is a disservice to the "illegals." This will just inflame passions further, but then that was probably the main idea anyway.

The Drill SGT said...

The Wif works for the smiley face side of DHS. as I describe it when asked, the part that says:

"raise your right hand and repeat" versus that part that says:

"put both hands on the wall and spred 'em asshole..."


yeah, she works for "Citizenship and Immigration Services", the fiolks who will implement this order.

She says, nobody has any idea how it will be done, what forms will be used, if fees are involved, etc

FWIW: CIS is fee funded...

William said...

A few years ago, in a Spanish language newspaper, I read of a Dominican immigrant who was fighting deportation. He had fathered three children by different women. He felt that it was unfair of the US government to deprive these children of their father. I don't know what became of the case......I can't get too outspoken in opposition to Obama's ruling. I know that this ruling will apply to some needy and deserving cases. We will hear all about them. But there will be other cases, not so needy and not so deserving, that we will never hear about.....I'm not so angry about the ruling, but I am angry about the cynicism of the President who made the ruling in such a way as to heighten the antagonisms surrounding it. This wasn't leadership. It was politics.....Also, under dept of unintended consequences, will this not ineevitably lead to immigrants trying to smuggle their babies into the US, as their hostage for the future. If some of these babies die on the arduous journey, won't Obama and Andy be complicit in baby murder.

Revenant said...

Apparently we have discarded democracy in favor of a new government form: storiocracy. Rule by those with a tale to tell.

And it is a very sad tale indeed, that children would be brought here by irresponsible parents and then grow up knowing only a country in which they could not legally stay. But a sad story is no reason to decide that the law-making power should be transferred to the executive branch. :)

Revenant said...

People who are illegal immigrants have consistently said they find that the label you have applied to them ("illegals") is a slur and shitty and dehumanizing,

Ouch!

Damn, I think I threw my back out trying to care.

Jane said...

What is this nonsense with "these kids don't even speak the language of the country of their birth any longer"?!

Maybe 0.00001% don't -- but that would mean that their parents speak English well enough for it to be the primary language spoken in the home, which I expect to be pretty darn unlikely, what with the tragic tales of kids being stuck in the translator role because mama and papa don't speak English.

Also note the "bait and switch" -- the original bill said that these kids had to be college students (though a 2 year degree was just fine) and we were given sad stories of valedictorians; now all that's required is working on a GED (which, by the way, can be taken in Spanish).

This is a load of nonsense. Why on earth is it such an unthinkable cruelty for a 20 year old to return to the land of their birth, which they left a mere 5 years previously? We're a country of immigrants, but it's intolerable to expect anyone to resettle in another country, unless that country is the U.S.?

SukieTawdry said...

And what percentage of those polled think the president lacks the authority to exempt a particular segment of the popular from existing law?

SukieTawdry said...

Revenant said...Apparently we have discarded democracy in favor of a new government form: storiocracy. Rule by those with a tale to tell.

Discarding the rule of law in favor of story telling (narrative) is the very essence of critical theory.

They try to tell us that Obama's association with people like Derrick Bell and his admiration for Bell's work and teachings are irrelevant. They are not.

SukieTawdry said...

population

Bruce Hayden said...

As someone pointed out above, since a HS diploma is pretty much required these days to join the military (and a lot of enlistees now come in with some college), the requirement is really that they graduated from HS and got here before 16, or are still going to school, plus no big criminal record.

Why are we essentially giving amnesty to people who are almost illiterate, in today's technological society? A HS diploma (or, apparently, a GED) is the minimum requirement for most jobs these days.

Sounds pretty much like blanket amnesty for those who got here before age 16.

ruchi said...

How about they should shower and change thier underwear everyday, clean behind their ears etc., and any other thing that other preeners of their good intentions can conjure up..