The Dream

June 15, 2012 7:44 AM

President Barack Obama's administration will reportedly announce Friday that it will stop deporting and grant work permits to nearly 1 million immigrants who entered or remained in the United States. The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.
posted by roomthreeseventeen (191 comments total)

good
posted by leotrotsky at 7:49 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

It blows my mind that you can serve in the military and still have to worry about being deported. When I'm King, military service will be a straight path to citizenship.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:49 AM on June 15, 2012 [34 favorites]

Republicans already have complained that previous administration uses of prosecutorial discretion in deportations amount to back-door amnesty.

What happened to their unitary executive idea?
posted by goethean at 7:50 AM on June 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I am more than fine with this.
posted by jquinby at 7:50 AM on June 15, 2012

This is why we should have voted for McCain. Obama is a such a failure.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:51 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I would like Obama to "bypass" congress and get the Feds to quit cracking down on pot if the individual states have voted to make it legal. Apparently he has the power to do that too.
posted by Kokopuff at 7:52 AM on June 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

1. I'm very glad to see this.

2. Wow, some people are going to shit their pants over this.
posted by COBRA! at 7:53 AM on June 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Oh, my mom is going to be pissed!
posted by scottatdrake at 7:53 AM on June 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

The "President of Disappointments" at work.
posted by windbox at 7:55 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

800,000 more Obama voters?
posted by Mister Moofoo at 7:56 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

I urge the President to reconsider. The Republicans will never like him and join hands with him to move forward in a spirit of bipartisan compromise for the good of the nation if he does this.
posted by Naberius at 7:56 AM on June 15, 2012 [76 favorites]

This is why we should have voted for McCain. Obama is a such a failure.

I think this is fanastic policy, but, you know, he's been president for three years and was saying even a week ago he didn't have authority to do this. It was only the increasingly national campaign-HQ-occupation movement that forced his hand.

"Holding his feet to the fire," and all.
posted by gerryblog at 7:57 AM on June 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

This makes me really proud to be an American.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

*In Robin Williams' voice* He can be taught!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:58 AM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

My understanding is that, unlike the DREAM Act, this is not a pathway to citizenship. The young people affected by this will be granted renewable work permits, not greencards. The big deal is just the no longer be deported thing.
posted by hydropsyche at 7:58 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Very cool. I'm wondering polarizing the electorate over immigration benefits the democrats actually, maybe antagonizing the racists makes all republicans look even more racist.

I wish he'd made legalizing pot a higher legislative priority, but basically Obama called off the federal prosecutors, presumably what federal pot prosecutions still occur fall under prosecutors poorly allocating their resources.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:58 AM on June 15, 2012

COBRA!: "2. Wow, some people are going to shit their pants over this."

Like this: King Barack Hussein Kardashian Obama thinks that he gets to invent laws where they don’t exists and disregard the ones that are already on the books.
posted by octothorpe at 7:58 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Money text:

"Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned an equivalent degree, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed."

The "no criminal record" thing is the only part that worries me, because of how easy it is to develop even a short criminal record just as a consequence of growing up as a poor member of an ethnic minority.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

> The Republicans will never like him and join hands with him to move forward in a spirit of bipartisan compromise for the good of the nation if he does this.

I think they've made it very clear by this point that they're never going to do that, regardless of what President Obama does.
posted by royalsong at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

This is really gonna piss-off Sheriff Joe.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

I would like Obama to "bypass" congress and get the Feds to quit cracking down on pot if the individual states have voted to make it legal. Apparently he has the power to do that too.

Is Legalizing Weed Obama's Secret Weapon?
posted by jquinby at 8:01 AM on June 15, 2012

The president grew visibly frustrated as each successive advocate spoke. He said that the advocates, too, should be pressing Republican lawmakers, that he sympathized with their concerns but that he did not have the legal authority to stop deportations. That was last Friday. This is a victory for the Whiners and Complainers, not a disproof of their concerns about this administration.
posted by gerryblog at 8:01 AM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Great news, and the timing should come as no surprise. Seems like Obama has more than responded to Romney's recent push to woo Hispanic voters.
posted by snaparapans at 8:02 AM on June 15, 2012

When I'm King, military service will be a straight path to citizenship.

*blinks*

Would you like to know more?
posted by Mayor West at 8:02 AM on June 15, 2012 [32 favorites]

I would love to see a decent legal analysis of this (I anticipate the DoJ has one drawn up somewhere if and when the administration gets sued). Anyone found one?
posted by dismas at 8:05 AM on June 15, 2012

Very happy for the incredible undocumented young people I have met who have put themselves through (top) college(s) (without federal financial aid) and are now trying to figure out how to make a life for themselves here in the US, the only home they have ever known. (I have no idea how this all falls out politically, but the Obama campaign leaders have always been very good at figuring out this sort of thing.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:06 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

800,000 more Obama voters?

Not if they're not citizens. If the rest of the DREAM act gets enacted, then yes they would eventually be voters and might feel grateful to Democrats, but Obama won't be in office then.

I think the voters he wants are their friends and loved ones (and family members who are citizens) who are tired of being the scapegoat of choice for the What's Wrong with Amurka is Damn Messicans Takin Our Jobs brigade.

My conservative relatives confirm this by posting the Fox news spin on everything; apparently right now its indeed OMG THEY WILL TAKE ALL OUR JOBS. I'm sure there will be other reasons why this makes him the antichrist that will be floated.

This analysis from DailyKos is interesting, though:

One thing that seems like an important political implication of this is that this is basically what Marco Rubio had wanted to do with his Republican half-DREAM Act. Romney had indicated he might support that proposal, which would have been a flip-flop and caused problems for him with his base. Now that Obama has used his executive authority to accomplish the same thing (a) it will be impossible for Republicans to try to claim a half-DREAM Act is a suitable replacement for a real DREAM Act with a path to citizenship and (b) it will probably be impossible for Romney to endorse Rubio's plan, now that Obama has moved forward with it.
posted by emjaybee at 8:06 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

if and when the administration gets sued

I'm not a lawyer but based on similar discussions around the 14th-Amendment-option during the debt ceiling crisis I bet they've concluded no one has standing to sue. Who would? The only people affected by this are benefitting from it.
posted by gerryblog at 8:07 AM on June 15, 2012

As someone that is living in a country that is currently getting rid of ways for foreign students to move from university to the work force, it is really nice to see my home moving in the right direction with this.
posted by jonbro at 8:10 AM on June 15, 2012

Sometimes crass political gain actually works in favor of Justice.

I do love when that happens. Especially just after the hilarity of the RNC using a stock photo of Asian children at the top of the site for its new Hispanic outreach program.

That was last Friday.

gerryblog, that article's great, thanks, but unless I'm misreading something the quote you pulled from it is about a meeting that took place in March 2010.
posted by mediareport at 8:11 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Perhaps we're starting to see the long-term consequences of congressional dysfunction- throughout U.S. history, but especially over the past 50 years, Congress has happily ceded de facto authority over foreign affairs. They'd prefer to comment from the sidelines rather than actually be responsible for decisions of war and peace. But this is making me think that the increased dysfunction of recent years may cause Congress to start ceding more authority over domestic affairs too.

I say that because major policy decisions like this are clearly supposed to be the domain of congress. And while every office has to prioritize its activities and devote resources accordingly, I don't think resource prioritization can be reasonably be used to let Justice Department basically stop enforcing certain laws. And yet I don't expect the Republicans to actually mount much of an objection to this. They'd rather that Obama take this issue off the table- now they won't be responsible for deciding what to do about our illegal immigrant population, and can instead bash the administration from the sidelines over it.

So I expect actions like this to continue, under all combinations of political control over the White House and Congress. It seems to me that Congress has just decided that it doesn't want to be in the business of governing anymore, and I expect that they'll be happy for the White House to take responsibility for dealing with problems like this away from them.
posted by gsteff at 8:12 AM on June 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

The "no criminal record" thing is the only part that worries me,

I don't know what the official wording will be, but I note that in that sentence, they use an "or" rather than an "and". In at least that sentence, a criminal background is not a hard-coded requirement if someone meets the others. I would have minimal problems with granting a work permit to someone with a criminal record who had since that time graduated high school and/or served in the military and is a grown-up adult now. But, I'm a liberal communist socialist libertarian or something, so I may not be the right guy to ask.
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:13 AM on June 15, 2012

gerryblog, that article's great, thanks, but unless I'm misreading something the quote you pulled from it is about a meeting that took place in March 2010.

Oops, passed that along without reading carefully. The *article* is from last Friday, at least!

Larger point stands: activists made Obama do this, and we should be glad they did.
posted by gerryblog at 8:14 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Policy change is one thing, actually getting ICE to act differently is another. Regarding Medical Marijuana, Holder said that Obama, his boss, said that it is US policy for the Feds never to raid Medical Marijuana Operations. We know how that worked out.

Latino leaders have raised the subject in private meetings with the president. In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported a record 396,906 people and is expected to deport about 400,000 this year.

A December poll by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that 59 percent of Latinos disapproved of the president's handling of deportations.

We'll see.
posted by snaparapans at 8:17 AM on June 15, 2012

Okay, so reading the actual DHS statement it's clearer to me that this is, pretty much, exactly the same as the earlier prosecutorial discretion policy the administration had put in place. Basically, they seem to be saying "if you meet these criteria, then we'll put off doing anything about your immigration status for two years and you can apply for a work permit." So to the extent that the earlier policy has held up legally (and, importantly, Congress hasn't bothered to do anything about it), this one seems like it should as well.

Re: the "no criminal record" - the actual criteria seems to be:

Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

So whatever that means, I guess. Comes down to what's 'significant' in misdemeanor cases, I suppose.

I expect the point of this is not that no kid in this age group will ever be deported, but many fewer will be.
posted by dismas at 8:24 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Irrespective of the specific issue involved, is it a good thing for the President to decide which laws he will enforce, and which ones he will not? That rather severely unbalances our constitutional balance-of-powers.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:25 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

is it a good thing for the President to decide which laws he will enforce, and which ones he will not?

Ask George W. Bush and his signing statements.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:27 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Yeah, the idea that Obama's a benevolent leader who magnanimously doles out gifts of progressivism like this To The People totally cracks me up. Read gerryblog's link for detailed reports of Obama's discomfort as immigration activists called him out again and again for his inaction on the deportations. it's a great read, and inspirational. Power doesn't grant unless forced.

And be sure to read gerryblog's other link:

Undocumented students occupy Obama's Oakland headquarters

A group of undocumented immigrants has occupied President Barack Obama's campaign office in downtown Oakland, refusing to leave until his administration stops deporting students.

"We're going to stay here as long as we can," said Luis Serrano, 24, speaking by cell phone Thursday evening from inside the Telegraph Avenue storefront where he and other students were staging a sit-in....Students took over Obama's Denver campaign headquarters in a similar protest last week, sparking a round of sit-ins now erupting in Los Angeles, Michigan and Ohio.

Sit-ins. I love it.
posted by mediareport at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

It depends on how the law is written. Many laws explicitly allow for the executive to exercise its discretion in deciding how to enforce and who to enforce against, and especially in the law-enforcement sector, even if the law doesn't explicitly give that discretion, there are so many more crimes being committed than the executive has money for investigation/prosecution that there has to be a decision on priorities.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2012

That rather severely unbalances our constitutional balance-of-powers.

The executive branch has always had that power. It's one of the balances.
posted by jsturgill at 8:29 AM on June 15, 2012

Also, Obama's going to keep going Decider on us in other areas no matter what, so at least he's using it for good (and vote-pandering, but also good!) this time.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:29 AM on June 15, 2012

That rather severely unbalances our constitutional balance-of-powers.

My reply would be the horse has left the barn there. Our institutions are so massively dysfunctional at the point that we should be happy with good policy where we can get it. The DREAM Act is only not yet law because of the filibuster, whose increasingly common abuse subverts both the will of the people and how the Senate has historically worked.

I won't lose any sleep over this.
posted by gerryblog at 8:31 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

The executive branch has always had that power. It's one of the balances.

What power? To decide which laws it will enforce and which it won't? Many liberals, including me, were pretty upset by Bush's signing statements because it was a massive power grab. Actions like this are no less of a power grab. How would you feel is Romney were to deprioritize enforcing labor law violations? Or corporate tax evasion?
posted by gsteff at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Presidents have always had that authority. Bush's DoJ famously stopped looking into civil rights violations.
posted by gerryblog at 8:35 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

>Regarding Medical Marijuana, [...] We know how that worked out.

Life Afghanistan, this is an issue where people listened in the Obama in their heads instead of the one speaking. The original announcement from Holder said that there were dispensaries running afoul of the law and that the DOJ intended to shut them down. Nobody has been raided, but dispensaries that were found to be operating too close to a school, playground, or other protected area have been forced to close.
posted by gngstrMNKY at 8:36 AM on June 15, 2012

Great news, and the timing should come as no surprise. Seems like Obama has more than responded to Romney's recent push to woo Hispanic voters.

I'm not sure why American citizens of Hispanic descent would support amnesty for illegal immigrants, even if they share the same skin color or heritage.
posted by gyc at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2012

Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish: It depends on how the law is written.

This is not a Law but a policy. Big difference.
posted by snaparapans at 8:38 AM on June 15, 2012

What power? To decide which laws it will enforce and which it won't? Many liberals, including me, were pretty upset by Bush's signing statements because it was a massive power grab. Actions like this are no less of a power grab. How would you feel is Romney were to deprioritize enforcing labor law violations? Or corporate tax evasion?

But the point is, they're going to. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop the Republicans from abuse of power. We already know this. It's one of the dreadful things about the present moment - that the naked struggle for power, which is usually masked by the need to legitimate the government in the eyes of the people, has been brought out into the open. I'll invoke the Allende model - when your enemy has tanks and guns and you decide that you're too principled to arm the people who support you, your enemies will shell the Moneda palace, shoot you in the head and install Pinochet.
posted by Frowner at 8:39 AM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

"What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism."

--Barack Obama
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:39 AM on June 15, 2012

This is not a Law but a policy. Big difference.

Yes, but every policy must be authorized by a law. Some laws give the executive broad leeway to work out the finer details through rules it makes on its own, while others have very little wiggle room. I haven't read the immigration laws, so I can't speak to the situation there.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:40 AM on June 15, 2012

I have never seen such a narcissistic, self-serving President. This is an impeachable offense, and not his first. What word in "ILLEGAL" does he not understand?
posted by caclwmr4 at 8:40 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

gyc: I'm not sure why American citizens of Hispanic descent would support amnesty for illegal immigrants, even if they share the same skin color or heritage.

Well they apparently do. Or at least there is a majority of Hispanics who are against the record number of Hispanic's being deported by Obama.
posted by snaparapans at 8:42 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not of Hispanic descent, but I can tell you that plenty of people who otherwise support tough immigration laws nonetheless support the DREAM Act because the people it affects were brought here as children, had no say in the matter, and in many cases didn't even realize they were undocumented until they reached adulthood.
posted by gerryblog at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2012 [17 favorites]

Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish: Yes, but every policy must be authorized by a law.

I am not a scholar when it comes to this stuff, but as far as I know Congress makes laws, and they have refused to pass the Dream act to date. This is a runaround, which the President is entitled to do. But, as far as I understand the difference between policy and law is that a law has to be followed, but policy not so much.

Policy, in this case, smells a bit like a campaign promise, iow, an empty gesture aimed at getting votes.
posted by snaparapans at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2012

This is interesting, because 1) Obama is stealing the possible thunder of Romney, and 2) this is continuing Obama's baby steps towards major changes. This starts debates and discussions, with one side ranting that he's gone too far, while the other say he hasn't gone far enough, but he's still making progress (or promises of progress, if this policy decision doesn't have teeth). Shifting the Overton Window and all that, making the new "normal" closer to what liberals/Democrats/whoever really want.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:49 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

This is an impeachable offense

no it's not
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:49 AM on June 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

There's a tremendous amount of leeway in how executives can run bureaucracies. I wouldn't presume Obama's out of step with his authority here. Prosecutorial discretion and administration of immigration permits are both established executive branch powers.
posted by gerryblog at 8:50 AM on June 15, 2012

I am not a scholar when it comes to this stuff, but as far as I know Congress makes laws, and they have refused to pass the Dream act to date. This is a runaround, which the President is entitled to do. But, as far as I understand the difference between policy and law is that a law has to be followed, but policy not so much.

Properly established policy has the force of law. Most environmental rules are a matter of policy, but you can be fined or imprisoned for dumping toxic sludge into a river without a permit just the same.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:51 AM on June 15, 2012

Yeah, this is definitely bringing the crazies out in force
It will hopefully help draw a strong distinction in the minds of those who previously were having trouble seeing big differences between Romney and Obama.

Also, the talk about the executive not having discretion in law enforcement is just insane. It's not as if Congress has provided the funding necessary to deport all illegal immigrants who come to ICE's attention. Congress forced the administration to let some people go through their own inaction. Good on Obama for focusing on those who are actually problematic.

Are kids who are brought across the border as minors guilty of illegal entry, or only the adult who brought them? It is not, after all, a crime to be here without authorization.
posted by wierdo at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I should have R'd the FA before I commented. I was hoping too hard, I guess.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 8:57 AM on June 15, 2012

Wow, President Obama really doesn't want this election to be about the economy.
posted by BobbyVan at 9:00 AM on June 15, 2012

I think this is fanastic policy, but, you know, he's been president for three years and was saying even a week ago he didn't have authority to do this. It was only the increasingly national campaign-HQ-occupation movement that forced his hand.

Well, yes. That is more or less how politics works. You say "I want this" and then you make it clear you really, really want it and that you can make the politician want to satisfy your wants.
posted by mightygodking at 9:04 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Wow, President Obama really doesn't want this election to be about the economy.

I wouldn't, either, since the American public believes (and wrongly so) that the President has the power to create jobs when Congress is pulling the purse strings so tightly it's strangling the economy and any hope of job creation.

This is Congress' fault, but it's easier to point fingers at the president because he's just one person and most House seats aren't competitive anyway.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:04 AM on June 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

Oh, man. What did Biden do this time?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

I think this is fanastic policy, but, you know, he's been president for three years and was saying even a week ago he didn't have authority to do this.

"But when I said I wanted a pony, I meant a magical pony. You never give me anything I really want."
posted by La Cieca at 9:15 AM on June 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Wow, President Obama really doesn't want this election to be about the economy.

Wow, Republicans really don't want the government to be about
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:15 AM on June 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

Gerryblog, I read the article you linked. It's a good piece, but among other things it shows just how hard Obama and the White House staff generally worked to try to get the Dream Act passed (falling just five votes shy in the senate) from the beginning of Obama's term in office. Had activists followed Obama's advice and focused their efforts more on susceptible Republican senators (do remember that there have bren many Republican advocates for the Dream Act over the years) it is possible that they might have got those five votes. When the vote on the dream act failed, Obama spoke powerfully about what a deep personal disappointment this was to him. This was all years ago, now. The notion that this is an issue that the administration ignored until activists forced them to pay some attention to it is simple false.

And as for Obama's comment that he is not a King and that he has to abide by the laws as they are written, that is true, and it remains true after this policy statement. As several people have pointed out this doesn't really do much to change the status quo. Obama had already used his discretionary powers to focus deportations on convicted criminals and other 'undesirables' and he is not capable of granting citizenship to anyone at all. Activists can occupy all the Obama offices they want to, but the simple fact remains that there is precious little the administration can do, unilaterally, on immigration law, where Congress holds pretty much all the cards.
posted by yoink at 9:21 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Jesus Cristo. Have you seen the front page of Drudge? I mean, I knew they were racist, but they aren't even dog whistling this shit any more.
posted by fungible at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Activists can occupy all the Obama offices they want to, but the simple fact remains that there is precious little the administration can do, unilaterally, on immigration law, where Congress holds pretty much all the cards.

He gave the activists what they were asking for when it looked like the Denver "undocuppation" was threatening to go national. It's great that he did! But this is proof that aggressively criticizing Obama gets results, not an argument that he's doing great and everyone should shut up.
posted by gerryblog at 9:25 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

It blows my mind that you can serve in the military and still have to worry about being deported. When I'm King, military service will be a straight path to citizenship.

It's depressing, but not surprising that this sentiment seems to be widespread. I would think that in a moral and just society participating in a "service" that kills people would be a minus towards citizenship.

Also this is a good thing but not really any meaningful change. The next republican president can just as easily revert any changes made by obama. So this seems to be on its face a cheap election year ploy that preys on the weakest among us to try and convince joe bob liberal that Obama really is different from Romney. But don't let me rain on the obamagasm in this thread.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:26 AM on June 15, 2012

I have never seen such a narcissistic, self-serving President.

You were either born in 2008, in which case I commend you on your rapid acquisition of typing skills and vocabulary, or have forgotten everything that happened between 2000 and 2008, in which case I urge you to visit a reputable physician immediately to determine what is wrong with your brain.
posted by Shepherd at 9:27 AM on June 15, 2012 [55 favorites]

hydropsyche: "My understanding is that, unlike the DREAM Act, this is not a pathway to citizenship. The young people affected by this will be granted renewable work permits, not greencards. The big deal is just the no longer be deported thing."

Awesome, so its a way for corporations to increase labor supply (thus increasing competition and putting even more downward pressure on wages) AND not have to share the social rights and benefits that they should get as citizens.
posted by symbioid at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I would think that in a moral and just society participating in a "service" that kills people would be a minus towards citizenship.

Uf. Because everyone who signs up says, "Is this the place where we join to kill people?" I would hope in a moral and just society people foreign nationals who serve in the military would be offered citizenship and that citizenship be taken from someone who spews empty-headed rhetoric.
posted by yerfatma at 9:31 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Also this is a good thing but not really any meaningful change. The next republican president can just as easily revert any changes made by obama. So this seems to be on its face a cheap election year ploy that preys on the weakest among us to try and convince joe bob liberal that Obama really is different from Romney. But don't let me rain on the obamagasm in this thread.

So let me try to understand this. Are you saying Obama should actively push for prosecution and deportation of undocumented immigrants. or are you saying that striking a self-righteous pose is more important to you than the future of 800,000 young people?
posted by La Cieca at 9:33 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

He gave the activists what they were asking for when it looked like the Denver "undocuppation" was threatening to go national.

Except that he'd already given them that in June 2011. The policy announced at that time specifically included people brought to the country as minors as among the categories of people who should not be deported unless they also had a criminal record etc. This is not, in fact, a change in policy--it's a restatement of existing policy. That's not to say it might not do some good (the President can announce a priority like this, but he cannot stop a duly appointed officer of the law from enforcing the laws as written, and certainly the previous policy has occasionally been ignored by the courts and by certain reginal ICE offices--this restatement might help drive the message home here and there), but it is to say that the Denver Occupiers did not change the President's mind about anything. They simply got him to say, again, what he has said for a long time.
posted by yoink at 9:35 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Awesome, so its a way for corporations to increase labor supply (thus increasing competition and putting even more downward pressure on wages) AND not have to share the social rights and benefits that they should get as citizens.

The President has no power, whatsoever, to grant citizenship. That said, you overstate the disadvantages of being on a work permit. There's no particular reason for workers on a work permit (so long as it is transferable between jobs) to have depressed wages relative to citizens. They need not live in fear of deportation, so they have no reason not to speak out against wage-law violations etc. And they will typically be eligible for all job benefits and for social security benefits and so forth. What they won't be able to do is vote and participate fully in the political process.

Clearly, people brought to the US as children and raised here should have a path to citizenship, but any such person would welcome being granted a legal right to live and work here for the indefinite future if the other option is not on the table.
posted by yoink at 9:43 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

gngstrMNKY: Life Afghanistan, this is an issue where people listened in the Obama in their heads instead of the one speaking.

You are absolutely correct on the Afghanistan issue, as Obama promised to use drones and kill the terrorists there, but not long after Obama's inauguration, Holder said:

"what the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement." He says Obama is "formally and technically and by law my boss now, and so what he said during campaign is now American policy." stated that Obama is his boss and has set policy.

never to raid Medical Marijuana operations. That is a fact, not some wishful thinking on my part.

Nobody has been raided, but dispensaries that were found to be operating too close to a school, playground, or other protected area have been forced to close.

That statement is patently false. The DOJ has not followed through on the Policy promise from Obama.
posted by snaparapans at 9:45 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

My understanding is that this action goes rather beyond the Morton memo in terms of force; this is policy, not a suggestion. Is that not right?
posted by gerryblog at 9:45 AM on June 15, 2012

But this is proof that aggressively criticizing Obama gets results, not an argument that he's doing great and everyone should shut up.

Ha! good point gerryblog. I hadn't thought of it in that way but yeah right on. It is actually quite funny that when obama is criticized on the blue a reoccurring tactic is to posit that it's actually the activists fault that things aren't getting done because they just aren't working hard enough. Now the activists have forced the presidents hand and he gets all the credit. What a country!!!!

Are you saying Obama should actively push for prosecution and deportation of undocumented immigrants.

apparently you missed the part where I said this is a good thing.

Because everyone who signs up says, "Is this the place where we join to kill people?" I would hope in a moral and just society people foreign nationals who serve in the military would be offered citizenship and that citizenship be taken from someone who spews empty-headed rhetoric.

I think you need to rethink what you just said because it comes across as the ramblings of a madman.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:47 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow, President Obama really doesn't want this election to be about the economy.

That mean old Mr. Obama forcing the right wing press to write racist screeds about filthy wetbacks taking our jerbs when all they really want to do is talk about how much better off we'd be if we'd let General Motors go bankrupt.
posted by yoink at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish: Properly established policy has the force of law.

Not when congress is unwilling to pass the very same law, and ICE is unwilling to enforce the President's policy. If what you were saying were true, we would not need congress.
posted by snaparapans at 9:56 AM on June 15, 2012

Wow, President Obama really doesn't want this election to be about the economy.

Well, this is a welcome change in tone from the usual bigotry coming out of the right these days. Keep up the hard work, you'll get there!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2012

The DOJ has not followed through on the Policy promise from Obama.

Your little flurry of links is a pretty good example of how many on the the left refuse to actually give even a semblance of a fair hearing to the DOJ or the administration on this issue, You first link is about a raid made before Obama had even taken office. Your second link is about a raid on a growing operation which was distributing product throughout multiple states--clearly in no way subject to the White House policy (and an operation that appears to have involved child endangerment and other legal violations to boot), the last link is about a raid where the DOJ spokesman says explicitly that the facility was not in compliance with state law OR federal law (again, explicitly not subject to the White House memo, which said that only operations conforming to state law would be spared) etc.

Yes, there have been raids that should not have taken place according to the White House memo. But the White House memo very clearly did not say that Marijuana laws would cease to be enforced in toto--which is how most of the "legalize it" crowd seem to choose to read it.
posted by yoink at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

My understanding is that this action goes rather beyond the Morton memo in terms of force; this is policy, not a suggestion. Is that not right?

The Morton Memo was a statement of administration policy. It had exactly the same legal force as today's announcement.
posted by yoink at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2012

The Morton Memo was a statement of administration policy. It had exactly the same legal force as today's announcement.

So what's the big deal about? Oh right theatre.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2012

This is an impeachable offense

no it's not

You're both wrong/right. Current legal thinking is that congress decides what constitutes a high crime [or] misdemeanour, there is no such thing as an impeachable offence without an impeachment hearing.

It's depressing, but not surprising that this sentiment seems to be widespread. I would think that in a moral and just society participating in a "service" that kills people would be a minus towards citizenship.

It's probably widespread because it's thousands of years old. Anyway, if you can think of a moral and just society that exists in the real world, let the rest of us know.
posted by atrazine at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2012

Not when congress is unwilling to pass the very same law

Congress' refusal to pass the same law could figure in a lawsuit, if anybody has standing to bring one, although the fact that this is only half of the DREAM Act and doesn't touch citizenship would muddy the waters.

If what you were saying were true, we would not need congress.

We don't need Congress to set specific policies on who gets a work permit, or how much CO2 a smokestack can pump out in a day, or any of the other thousands of policy details that are determined by executive-branch rules but have the force of law.

I realize I talk out of my ass sometimes, but this is my actual job. That's how the system works.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:20 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

yoink: But the White House memo very clearly did not say that Marijuana laws would cease to be enforced in toto

That is clear. My point was less about the DOJ and Medical Marijuana, but that Policy statements often carry about the same weight as campaign promises.

And, as far as legalizing Marijuana goes, or, Medical Marijuana, the left is not the major proponent of revising those laws. If it was the US would be a Socialist country by now.
posted by snaparapans at 10:21 AM on June 15, 2012

How is this vote-pandering?

People who have work permits cannot vote, and the Hispanic population that immigrated here legally aren't particularly sympathetic to illegal immigrants, since they feel the whole issue gives them a bad reputation.
posted by Tarumba at 10:21 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Morton Memo was a statement of administration policy. It had exactly the same legal force as today's announcement.

So what's the big deal about? Oh right theatre.

Well, that is a bit disheartening, but it's still a much more public declaration, and has more force in that arena even if the content does turn out to be no different than the earlier, badly enforced policy.
posted by gerryblog at 10:30 AM on June 15, 2012

It's probably widespread because it's thousands of years old.

Yes anyone who can read the earliest writings made by humans can see that. That doesn't make it the correct way to do things. Another human activity that is thousands of years old is child sacrifice. I highly doubt we will see anyone defending child sacrifice on the blue...unless of course the children are sacrificed as part of a drone strike in some third world country.

Anyway, if you can think of a moral and just society that exists in the real world, let the rest of us know.

I guess if something doesn't currently exist that means it can't possibly exist amirite?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:31 AM on June 15, 2012

Like this: King Barack Hussein Kardashian Obama thinks that he gets to invent laws where they don’t exists and disregard the ones that are already on the books.

Are they now just tagging on the names of random people they dislike?
posted by Pope Xanax IV at 10:39 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

King Barack Clinton Hussein Jessie Jackson Kardashian Carter Obama
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:42 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

It blows my mind that you can serve in the military and still have to worry about being deported. When I'm King, military service will be a straight path to citizenship.

That's pretty much already the case.

It's not clear to me that there are many veterans covered under the new rules that weren't covered under the old one if they filed the paperwork.
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2012

How is this vote-pandering?

Obama is feeling the heat and is trying to set himself apart from his fellow corporate stooge/opponent in an election year. Jeb Bush spoke recently on the issue of Republicans and immigration:

“Governor Romney has used this as a means to connect with a group of voters that were quite angry and was effective,” Mr. Bush said. “Now he’s in somewhat of a box. But I think the broader question is, how do you get out of it?”

Making this an issue puts the pressure back on Romney to make deals with Hispanic voters. But he can't do that without looking indecisive, and it also would put him at odds with less... inclusive... right-wing voters, as Jeb points out. So it's going to be vote-pandering all the way around.

It's a neat little trap from Obama. One might think him sincere on the issue, if he hadn't previously been so strenuously opposed to it. But it is clearly election-year strategizing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure why American citizens of Hispanic descent would support amnesty for illegal immigrants, even if they share the same skin color or heritage.

I a person of Hispanic descent who was born a US citizen. All of the people in my family are legal citizens. No one in my family has any use for amnesty.

However, I support this because it's basically the opposite of most of the immigration legislation passed around the country in the last decade, most of it transparently aimed at Hispanics. I was born here and sometimes I feel unwelcome due to the poisonous legislative atmosphere and the fact that so many people are freakin' scared of having people around who speak a different language. The worst by far are the laws that require people to provide proof of citizenship based on suspicion.

What makes people suspicious of whether or not you're a citizen? Is is how you look or your accent? Is it your last name? This kind of stuff is terrifying if you're Hispanic. If I forget to carry my drivers license while taking a walk do I risk getting detained? I was especially afraid for my (US Citizen) grandmother up until her death last year. Her English wasn't so good and she has a tendency to get confused.

This legislation is finally something that is not trying to get certain kinds of people, people who share a culture with me, to give up and leave. For once the government is deciding tone down the threats of detention and exile directed at ordinary people. I can't not like that.
posted by Alison at 10:53 AM on June 15, 2012 [22 favorites]

King Barack Clinton Hussein Jessie Jackson Kardashian Carter Obama y Garcia
posted by jquinby at 10:54 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

But it is clearly election-year strategizing.

thirteen dimensional chess blaze get your shit straight.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:57 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

King Barack Hussein X Kardashian Ayatollah Louisa Franchesca Banana Fana Fo Fesca Obama the Third.

But call him "Barry," and you die.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:57 AM on June 15, 2012

It's depressing, but not surprising that this sentiment seems to be widespread. I would think that in a moral and just society participating in a "service" that kills people would be a minus towards citizenship.

Like this: King Barack Hussein Kardashian Obama thinks that he gets to invent laws where they don’t exists and disregard the ones that are already on the books.

Man, this thread is really turning into a tight race for "dumbest thing ever posted on the blue".
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:01 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm in favor of this move, but let's not pretend that Obama would have made it if not for pressure from his base during an election year. His record regarding immigration issues has not been stellar.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Man, this thread is really turning into a tight race for "dumbest thing ever posted on the blue".

Yes not wanting to encourage or promote war is dumb. Immigrants are the least and most vulnerable among us and you tools want them to be forced/encouraged to join the military. Fuck that noise.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2012

Blazecock Pileon: if he hadn't previously been so strenuously opposed to it.

Really he has been in favor of the Dream Act since he was running for POTUS. Republicans have blocked the measure repeatedly. He could be criticized for not pushing hard for the Act, in his first two years, but to say he was opposed to it is false.
posted by snaparapans at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

One might think him sincere on the issue, if he hadn't previously been so strenuously opposed to it.

Wait--what? Obama strenuously opposes immigration reform and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? He's been one of the biggest proponents in Washington of the Dream Act. He took a serious political hit in Washington when the Dream Act flopped, you know.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:10 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

there is no such thing as an impeachable offence without an impeachment hearing

Right, but impeaching Obama over this would be the same mockery of the Constitution that impeaching Bill Clinton over blowjobs was.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:12 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Are they now just tagging on the names of random people they dislike?

My right-wing is a little rusty, but I think the idea is to paint him as an empty celebrity.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:15 AM on June 15, 2012

Two very important questions:

1) What effect will this have on the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country for whatever year the associated law is passed?
2) What effect will this have on the number of H1-B visas granted?

Given that everything is a trade-off, one or both of these numbers will be impacted.

I also sincerely hope that there are lots of rules attached about getting these 1 million people on a rapid path toward legal citizenship, with deadlines for completion of citizenship courses, etc.
posted by gsh at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2012

Who was the shouty guy interrupting Obama while he was making his statement? WAY TO MAKE IT ABOUT YOU, SHOUTY GUY.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 11:35 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I also sincerely hope that there are lots of rules attached about getting these 1 million people on a rapid path toward legal citizenship

The president has no power to open a citizenship path to people who didn't enter the country legally; all he can do is decide not to expel them. Citizenship eligibility is spelled out in the law and changing it really would require an act of Congress.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:37 AM on June 15, 2012

Damn that Obama! How dare he keep doing the right thing? How are we supposed to be disappointed in him if he keeps that shit up??
posted by tommyD at 11:48 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Here's Shouty Guy: he's some Tucker Carlson tool. Ass.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 11:53 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Why have borders?

Why have the TSA harassing US Citizens, but giving a free pass and a wink to criminal invading ILLEGALS?

(I now await further personal attacks on me with no comments on the above questions.)
posted by caclwmr4 at 11:56 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

You'll need a citation for their being criminals.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Why have borders?

Borders went out of business.

Why have the TSA harassing US Citizens, but giving a free pass and a wink to criminal invading ILLEGALS?

The TSA shouldn't be harassing US citizens.

Undocumented immigration is a civil offense. "Illegals" are as much criminals as people who speed.

This isn't a "free pass", it's a two-year temporary reprieve subject to a number of conditions.

Deportations of illegal immigrants is at an all time high under the Obama administration even as illegal immigration itself has decreased.

(I now await further personal attacks on me with no comments on the above questions.)

Taco.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:03 PM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Clip of Obama responding to shouty guy.
posted by anekona at 12:04 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

1) What effect will this have on the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country for whatever year the associated law is passed?
2) What effect will this have on the number of H1-B visas granted?

Given that everything is a trade-off, one or both of these numbers will be impacted.

Not everything is a zero-sum game.

This will have no effect whatsoever on the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country, or on H1-B visas. Except, perhaps, that there may end up being more people who are already in the country, who have grown up here, and who are part of the American community, who are able to work for American companies, without having to turn to the H1-B system. Which is, in fact, how it should work.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:05 PM on June 15, 2012

Why have the TSA harassing US Citizens, but giving a free pass and a wink to criminal invading ILLEGALS?

One has nothing to do with the other.

Also, our point here is that these kids are not doing anything wrong. Yes, their position is illegal, but this is about acknowledging that legality and morality are not the same thing, and never have been.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:07 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's a clown question, bro.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 12:10 PM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

This is a victory for the Whiners and Complainers, not a disproof of their concerns about this administration.

...only if you haven't been following the administration's immigration policy for the last 3.5 years. Start with the Morton Memo and get back to me.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:11 PM on June 15, 2012

Undocumented immigration is a civil offense. "Illegals" are as much criminals as people who speed.

Depends on the facts of the particular case, but 8 U.S.C. § 1325:

Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. ...

IANAL, but my understanding is that subsection (a) makes various sorts of improper entry a crime.
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2012

Why have borders?

Property law.

Why have the TSA harassing US Citizens, but giving a free pass and a wink to criminal invading ILLEGALS?

Your question presumes several things. Let's unpack them.

• Immigrants not within certain paths you seem to know are all criminals.
• There are completely fixed and fully known paths to permanent residency or citizenship that are always clear and always provide everyone involved with a clear sense of where on their path they are.
• TSA treatment of citizens is worse than that of non-citizens.
• Caps lend credence to your argument.

None of your presumptions are correct, so I can't really answer your question. Please try again.

Now, I won't make a personal attack, but I will note that your comment history shows a consistent pattern of blaming government for our problems. While I'm happy to look at how government can be improved, I'm not happy to pretend to do that with partners who would rather break it to prove a point, and historically people who have taken the positions you're taking here have done exactly that. Why not try to pull your weight as a citizen (note that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here--you are a U.S. citizen, right?) and think creatively about how we might all live together better?

I'm the child of an immigrant who married a U.S. citizen while they were both in college. I was born here in the U.S. several years later. I'm pretty clearly on the side of the line that means I don't have to worry about immigration issues, but I do. I have actually been in the room with an immigration lawyer reviewing a visa application. I have actually discussed different types of visa status with real live immigrants. I know these people personally. I promise you they're not mooches or monsters or druggies or whatever you think they are. Do immigrant criminals exist? Sure. Do citizen criminals exist? Even more. Why are you so worked up about the immigrant ones, and why are you trying to paint all immigrants with the criminal brush?

This announcement is something of a relief and hopefully a place to start, but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 12:26 PM on June 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

ThisIsNotMe: It is true that an undocumented person in the US can commit crimes under title 18, just like any US citizen can. But simply being an undocumented person is not in any way a criminal offense under US law. Undocumented people are not in any way illegal any more than speeders are.
posted by snaparapans at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Last month during a tour in Brazil, World Wrestling Entertainment suspended one of their "bad guy" wrestlers, Chris Jericho, for stomping on a Brazilian flag during a promo. He was banned from all programs for 30 days.

This afternoon a self-titled "reporter" for a blog run by a right-wing pundit literally interrupted the President of the United States as he was making a press statement, in his capacity as a self-titled "reporter." Skipping the fact that this person even had press credentials to begin with, he will likely still have them tomorrow.

I just felt like saying these two things in regards to the current state of our media.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:30 PM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

ah, caclwmr4, you are precious you know?
posted by edgeways at 12:31 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Didn't take long, sounds like Steve King is planning on suing.
posted by edgeways at 12:34 PM on June 15, 2012

snaparapans, I understand this: "It is true that an undocumented person in the US can commit crimes under title 18, just like any US citizen can. But simply being an undocumented person is not in any way a criminal offense under US law."

But that is not what dirigibleman wrote. He wrote: "Undocumented immigration is a civil offense. "Illegals" are as much criminals as people who speed."

In the context of "undocumented immigration" (i.e. crossing the border illegally) rather than being an undocumented immgirant (e.g. because you were in status and went out if status), undocumented immigration is a crime and not a civil offense.
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 12:38 PM on June 15, 2012

But "45% of 'Illegals' are as much criminals as people who speed" is not as effective a slogan.
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 12:41 PM on June 15, 2012

I love when reading comments or articles about Obama when the author of those comments and articles addresses him as Barack Hussein Obama. It make is so easy to dismiss them right out of the chute.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:41 PM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Why have borders?

They mark the edge of your jurisdiction. to a large extent, relations between nations can be modeled in terms of competing legal systems. There are borders between US states and each has a subtly different legal system, but there is no economic advantage to be had by limiting the flow of Americans across those borders. Think of the US border as the boundary of a common-law legal system with a particular mix of protections for liberty and private property. Every entrant to the country is in effect a new client of that system.

Why have the TSA harassing US Citizens, but giving a free pass and a wink to criminal invading ILLEGALS?

I don't know why the TSA is harrassing citizens, because they do a poor job of it. However, illegal immigrants are neither criminal nor invasive by definition. I am an illegal immigrant, and have an expert-level understanding of immigration law. You shouldn't rely on me for legal advice, a) because I am not formally qualified to dispense it and do not wish you think I am engaged in the practice of law, and b) because I do not plan on sitting here grinding out answers and citations to hostile and uninformed questioning all afternoon only for the source material to go unread, which is what usually happens in contentious discussions. So you can take my answers at face value or ignore them as you see fit.

If someone enters at a recognized border crossing and overstays their entry visa, that's illegal immigration but not a criminal offense. If someone enters without inspection that's a more serious form of illegal immigration (which forecloses various paths to regularization), but still not a criminal offense. If someone is deported and re-enters without inspection that is a criminal offense, but the attorney-general has discretion to waive charges upon application

(I now await further personal attacks on me with no comments on the above questions.)

Your reaction is natural but uninformed. If you search for MeFi posts by me on the topic of immigration, you'll find a lot of useful information. Serious discussion of immigration law, procedure, and regulatory structure is kind of beyond the scope of MetaFilter, as immigration law is the second most complicated branch of law after the tax code. I urge you to learn more about the subject but warn that it requires considerable study and there are no shortcuts.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:42 PM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

If someone enters without inspection that's a more serious form of illegal immigration (which forecloses various paths to regularization), but still not a criminal offense.

Can you explain to me how you reconcile that with 8 U.S.C. § 1325: ... Any alien who ... (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers ... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both"?
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 12:44 PM on June 15, 2012

I love when reading comments or articles about Obama when the author of those comments and articles addresses him as Barack Hussein Obama. It make is so easy to dismiss them right out of the chute.

"Barry" works for that, too.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:51 PM on June 15, 2012

Right, but impeaching Obama over this would be the same mockery of the Constitution that impeaching Bill Clinton over blowjobs was.

Funnily enough, it's not even close to the Clinton nonsense. At least perjury actually is a sort of crime. Obama is just acting like the head of the executive branch, which he is.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:53 PM on June 15, 2012

It's a neat little trap from Obama. One might think him sincere on the issue, if he hadn't previously been so strenuously opposed to it. But it is clearly election-year strategizing.

Uninformed and wrong. Yoink's comments are a much more reliable guide to administration policy.

Can you explain to me how you reconcile that with 8 U.S.C. § 1325: ... Any alien who ... (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers ... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both"?

You're not subject to US jurisdiction until after you have stepped across the border, so for legal purposes you have not had constructive notice of the criminality of the action. If you walked right back over the border and then walked back into the US, then you have and your second entry would be your first offense.

I've not been keeping up with immigration topics at the law library for the last couple of months, so I'd need to spend a good hour (at least) on Lexis trying to source that for you, which I'm not going to do today - sorry. As far as I recall that was the substance of a BIA decision that was upheld on appeal sometime around 2002, but I can't cite off the top of my head.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:59 PM on June 15, 2012

...only if you haven't been following the administration's immigration policy for the last 3.5 years.

Namely, increasing deportation levels to their highest ever.

The record number of deportations under the Obama administration has left a "wake of devastation in Latino communities across the nation," Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "These record-breaking deportation numbers come at a time when illegal immigration rates have plummeted, the undocumented population has decreased substantially and violent crime rates are at their lowest levels in 40 years. Our country can no longer afford to pay for uncontrolled, unwarranted DHS spending, at the cost to U.S. taxpayers."

Despite election-year attempts to rewrite history, the Whiners, Complainers and Punched Hippies guided the President into this decision and they are the ones to be congratulated for their efforts.

If you think about it, this brouhaha is actually kind of ironic for Obama, in that he's doing this to try to keep his own job. It's a story as American as apple pie.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:59 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

ThisIsNotMe: Your argument paints a broad brush on undocumented people who are in this country. The term illegals is used colloquially to describe all undocumented workers, not the vast minority of those who entered the country illegally.

As tempting as it would be for some. it would be just as crazy to call New Yorkers illegals because a certain percentage of NYers have committed crimes.
posted by snaparapans at 1:00 PM on June 15, 2012

Obama Gets Smart on Immigration With New Policy for DREAMers: Latinos frustrated by years of record deportations and ineffective policy are ecstatic at the president’s executive order halting forced removals for many young undocumented immigrants.
posted by homunculus at 1:01 PM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama is just acting like the head of the executive branch, which he is.

Quite so. The problem is that IIRIRA is so full of prescriptions and (highly questionable) foreclosures of judicial review that its supporters believe it to be an inescapable legal straitjacket, though I like to think of it more as a fishing net - it's full of holes but that doesn't mean you'd want to be tangled up in it if you have anywhere you need to go in the foreseeable future.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:05 PM on June 15, 2012

There was an excellent Frontline on Obama and immigration last October:

Lost in Detention: FRONTLINE and the Investigative Reporting Workshop examine the Obama administration’s controversial get-tough immigration policy.
posted by homunculus at 1:05 PM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

anekona: "Clip of Obama responding to shouty guy."

Holy Fuck, he said "furriners"...

I didn't know that the president unilaterally hired and fired every single person in the US.
posted by symbioid at 1:07 PM on June 15, 2012

Neil Munro, representative of The Daily Caller, claims he didn't mean to interrupt the president - he just mistimed his question.

I believe this is where somebody yells "You Lie" at Mr. Munro.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:14 PM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Uninformed and wrong

You are encouraged to explain in laborious detail how historic levels of deportations by the executive branch and increased budgetary commitments by the executive branch to the DHS and National Guard to "secure" borders factor into administration policy that you are arguing has somehow, in fact, been friendly to immigrants.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:22 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Calling a group of people "illegals" is incredibly dehumanizing. It makes me extremely sad to see this term being used so flippantly.

Actions are illegal. People are not illegal.
posted by moammargaret at 1:43 PM on June 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

Please note that Shouty Guy does not appear to carry a recording device or even a pen and pad of paper.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 1:44 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney's response: this is bad because it discourages congress from doing the same thing permanently through legislation, like the DREAM act, which Romney opposed.

lol
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:49 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Please note that Shouty Guy does not appear to carry a recording device or even a pen and pad of paper.

That's part of why I referred to him as a representative of The Daily Caller and not as a reporter. There is no evidence that he's a reporter.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:57 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

So why do they give press passes to non-reporters?
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 2:00 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

He's a reporter! Look, here he is reporting on the day's events!

On Friday The Daily Caller asked a question as his speech appeared to be ending.

Yuh-huh.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:02 PM on June 15, 2012

Blazecock Pileon: You are encouraged to explain in laborious detail how historic levels of deportations by the executive branch and increased budgetary commitments by the executive branch to the DHS and National Guard to "secure" borders factor into administration policy that you are arguing has somehow, in fact, been friendly to immigrants.

Well the explanation is simple. It is election strategy to unify the nation. Now you and your GOP friends call all vote for Obama because he did a better job than Bush to rid the country of foreign criminals. And the Latinos can vote for Obama because he giving all their hard working children, military and parents who are undocumented. the right to live in the US free from fear of deportation. And the rest of us have to scream about something we all want, so he panders to us too..

Looking good for Obama. glad to know he has your vote.
posted by snaparapans at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2012

Namely, increasing deportation levels to their highest ever.

That's one aspect of a much more complex policy, and a largely justifiable one. I say that as someone who is also at risk of deportation.

Despite election-year attempts to rewrite history, the Whiners, Complainers and Punched Hippies guided the President into this decision and they are the ones to be congratulated for their efforts.

Ahahaha! Good one. I know the people who drafted the Dream Act and let me assure you, they're pretty pragmatic individuals. Here is one explaining how the legislative effort got off the ground. He as little patience with what he described to me as 'ideological bullshit.'

You are encouraged to explain in laborious detail how historic levels of deportations by the executive branch and increased budgetary commitments by the executive branch to the DHS and National Guard to "secure" borders factor into administration policy that you are arguing has somehow, in fact, been friendly to immigrants.

Make it worth my while, then. The administration's focus since day 1 has been to maximize the deportation of career criminals while halting inflows in order to hamstring the opponents of liberalization. I wholeheartedly support this policy. Perhaps you in turn would care to explain why the ICE union has fought the administration tooth and nail on these issues, going so far as to tell its members not to participate in training, engineering (meaningless) votes of no confidence in administration policy, and attack the administration in congressional testimony to the legislative patrons of the existing dysfunctional policy.

I have posted about this on Metafilter before. Every effort at liberalization taken by the Obama administration has been attacked by AFGE c118, the ICE union. I have not heard one word of criticism from the 'whiners, complainers and punched hippies' about this union's systematic obstruction of administration policy. Why not?
posted by anigbrowl at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: King Czar Ayatollah Barack Kardassian Kanye Bieber Tonya Harding Hussein Che Chavez Castro Osama Obama the XIVth.

A group of undocumented immigrants has occupied President Barack Obama's campaign office in downtown Oakland, refusing to leave until his administration stops deporting students.

"We're going to stay here as long as we can," said Luis Serrano, 24, speaking by cell phone Thursday evening from inside the Telegraph Avenue storefront where he and other students were staging a sit-in....Students took over Obama's Denver campaign headquarters in a similar protest last week, sparking a round of sit-ins now erupting in Los Angeles, Michigan and Ohio.

Heh, that's pretty brilliant.

So much for all the people who say "Oh, obama can't do anything, he has no power, it's all congress, bla bla bla" They were always ridiculous, but this just makes it obvious.

Even in this thread people are making the argument, event though it directly contradicts exactly hat happened:

Activists can occupy all the Obama offices they want to, but the simple fact remains that there is precious little the administration can do, unilaterally, on immigration law, where Congress holds pretty much all the cards.

Amazing!

I wouldn't, either, since the American public believes (and wrongly so) that the President has the power to create jobs when Congress is pulling the purse strings so tightly it's strangling the economy and any hope of job creation.

Obama does have the power to create jobs. The job of the FED is supposed to be to manage unemployment through monetary policy, and Obama re-appointed bernanke, who doesn't seem to care.

And the thing is He's running on his record of job creation!! If Obama doesn't actually have the power to create jobs, the central premise of his re-election campaign is a lie. Is that what you're claiming? That Obama's main campaign argument is dishonest?

It always amazes me that not only will people make completely illogical arguments to defend Obama, they make arguments that directly contradict what he actually says!

Had activists followed Obama's advice and focused their efforts more on susceptible Republican senators (do remember that there have bren many Republican advocates for the Dream Act over the years) it is possible that they might have got those five votes.

Or they could have focused on Obama's campaign HQ and that seems to have worked as well, and was a lot easier!

I would like Obama to "bypass" congress and get the Feds to quit cracking down on pot if the individual states have voted to make it legal. Apparently he has the power to do that too.

He did. And then he changed his mind for some reason. We'll have to see if he changes his mind on this after the election.

Policy change is one thing, actually getting ICE to act differently is another. Regarding Medical Marijuana, Holder said that Obama, his boss, said that it is US policy for the Feds never to raid Medical Marijuana Operations. We know how that worked out.

Again, they changed their minds. As far as ICE goes they can't legally deport someone if they're here legally. Although they do occasionally screw up, even US citizens sometimes get deported.

To decide which laws it will enforce and which it won't? Many liberals, including me, were pretty upset by Bush's signing statements because it was a massive power grab. Actions like this are no less of a power grab. How would you feel is Romney were to deprioritize enforcing labor law violations? Or corporate tax evasion?

Liberals didn't like it because they liked the laws he was ignoring. Bush already deprioritized corporate (and personal) tax evasion. He probably deprioritized labor law and definitely deprioritized environmental law.

I'm not sure why American citizens of Hispanic descent would support amnesty for illegal immigrants, even if they share the same skin color or heritage.

Well, they are, and I doubt they care how you personally feel about it. Maybe one reason is that many of them have friends and relatives who are may be undocumented. Maybe they're worried about being harassed by idiot local cops like Joe Arpaio looking to but 'illegals'

Especially just after the hilarity of the RNC using a stock photo of Asian children at the top of the site for its new Hispanic outreach program.

Where do you think Hispanics came from?
posted by delmoi at 2:54 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

As far as the "It's a crime to enter the country illegally!!!" thing, many of the people who would be affected by the DREAM act were only children when they entered and didn't even have a choice. Penalizing an adult for a "Crime" the committed when they were 3, 5, or 7 years old seems absolutely insane.
posted by delmoi at 2:57 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Calling a group of people "illegals" is incredibly dehumanizing. It makes me extremely sad to see this term being used so flippantly.

I agree that calling people "illegals" is really not cool; however, please note that calling someone an "illegal immigrant" is not the same thing.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 3:36 PM on June 15, 2012

Make it worth my while, then.

There have been several people in this thread, myself included, who have already shown you how the current administration has been actively antagonistic to immigrants, through very specific actions that can only be done at the behest of the executive branch, acts which have had very serious consequences.

When asked directly to explain these actions, you have chosen to wave them away as "complex". Fair enough, but perhaps you should be making your opinion worth our while, instead of mistakenly appealing to authority you do not seem to have.

I have not heard one word of criticism from the 'whiners, complainers and punched hippies' about this union's systematic obstruction of administration policy. Why not?

If ICE staff are obstructing the function of the DHS, how is Obama's team even more successful at rounding people up than any previous administration? It does not matter, in any case, as it is almost entirely irrelevant to what the executive branch chose to do within the confines of its power. Blaming a union for cabinet-level — administration-level — budgetary, policy and manpower decisions is not helping your opinion much.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:36 PM on June 15, 2012

Current trending response to Shouty Guy from my right wing friends:

"Well, I didn't see you lefties getting upset when somebody threw shoes at President Bush."

Four friends (three of whom don't know the others) all posted something on this theme more or less at once on their Facebook walls, so I'm assuming its a talking point from some blog or other.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:46 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

As far as the "It's a crime to enter the country illegally!!!" thing, many of the people who would be affected by the DREAM act were only children when they entered and didn't even have a choice. Penalizing an adult for a "Crime" the committed when they were 3, 5, or 7 years old seems absolutely insane.

Title 8 is full of such absurdities, but getting legal standing to sue the government in the absence of a colorable interest is a tricky constitutional problem. It's rather hard to argue that a law infringes on civil rights that you don't necessarily have in the first place.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:54 PM on June 15, 2012

timing

"funny joey mentions shoes and bush."

-W. Dodge Wells.
posted by clavdivs at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2012

If ICE staff are obstructing the function of the DHS, how is Obama's team even more successful at rounding people up than any previous administration? It does not matter, in any case, as it is almost entirely irrelevant to what the executive branch chose to do within the confines of its power. Blaming a union for cabinet-level — administration-level — budgetary, policy and manpower decisions is not helping your opinion much.

That's breathtakingly disingenous. When ICE staff concertedly refuse to implement the policy decisions of the administration (like not deprioritizing the deportation aliens without any criminal history) that is not the fault of the administration.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:01 PM on June 15, 2012

Snouty Guy is part of a deliberate strategy by the Replublicans to attempt to diminish the President's standing in the eyes of the public and make him look weak. By denying him the respect of the office publicly by shouting at him and not giving him the deference normally afforded a President, they are advancing their "he is not a legitimate ruler" meme and, at the same time, trying to destroy his ability to effectively get his message across. The story, at least part of it, becomes not, "this is what the president is saying about this issue," but "conservative hero disses the evil foreign dictator!" It's the same tactics the Tea Party plants used at town hall meetings iduring the health care reform debate, the "You lie!" heckling during the State of the Union, and the Romney bus circling the site of Obama's speech yesterday. I bet we are going to see a lot more of it from here on out. The Obama team had better get cracking on countering this tactic.
posted by vibrotronica at 4:02 PM on June 15, 2012

I think Obama handled it perfectly. I don't like such media-manipulations, but it's essentially the same as what Code Pink or any direct action protest does.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:12 PM on June 15, 2012

The Obama team had better get cracking on countering this tactic.

One would figure Obama's security would do a better job after Gannon/Guckertgate. Dark days are upon us when a journalist has to sleep with Tucker Carlson to get a press pass.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:52 PM on June 15, 2012

3 point shot. The Republicans have no respect for the meaning of the rule of law. So fuck them.

I bet you Axelrod and Plouffe ran the numbers carefully. It might be risky, but they are taking it knowingly.
posted by spitbull at 5:03 PM on June 15, 2012

This is another good move from Obama. I wish he was running for re-election every year.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:47 PM on June 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

"What happened to their unitary executive idea?"

Its been twisted beyond recognition! It was created to be used only for killing, torturing, and imprisoning people without due process, not this godless "helping".
posted by stratastar at 5:59 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

White House: MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through univision.com told us -- I’m reading -- “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn’t mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country. (Applause.)
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:45 PM on June 15, 2012

Wait, people now thing Obama did this because he was worried about activists in Oakland getting mad? That's... That's just adorable. Oakland lefties are as powerless as it gets: They represent a few hundred votes in a massive state, have no media pull, and have no alliances with large organizations, just other scattered groups of a few hundred lefties here and there, adding up to a couple thousand votes nationwide. Getting issues into the press is good, but Oakland has been such a hotbed for so long that no one pays attention to what Occupy Oakland's mad about now. Not to say they don't do some good work---some of the foreclosure prevention has been genuinely effective. But this was about placating massive entities like Univision, not a handful of angry vegans.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:22 AM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Something about the DREAM Act never really sat right with me*, but this is a good thing. The restrictions are fair, and it grants a lot of young people the opportunity to become productive members of this country.




*I guess because I'm biased--My maternal Grandma was a teenage orphan single Mom with a 3rd grade education who had enough sense to enter this country legally. Or am I missing something--Is immigrating into this country legally a lot harder than it was in the late 1940's?
posted by luckynerd at 10:49 AM on June 16, 2012

Is immigrating into this country legally a lot harder than it was in the late 1940's?

YES.

http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/immigration-flowchart-roadmap-to-green-card.pdf

Unless today's teenage orphan single moms have employers willing to sign legally binding documents saying they will definitely have jobs when they enter the country, or have immediate family who are already US citizens, they can immigrate illegally or not at all.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:16 AM on June 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Relatedly, an article on DREAM and undocumented kids in the current Boston Magazine.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:03 PM on June 16, 2012

It's the same tactics the Tea Party plants used at town hall meetings iduring the health care reform debate, the "You lie!" heckling during the State of the Union, and the Romney bus circling the site of Obama's speech yesterday. I bet we are going to see a lot more of it from here on out.

Anger Management
posted by homunculus at 1:22 PM on June 16, 2012

Is immigrating into this country legally a lot harder than it was in the late 1940's?

Exponentially. Furthermore, many DREAMers were brought into the country as young children by their parents with no choice in the matter. The current immigration law is designed not to work, and where it does function it's often as a result of agency interpretations or judicial review. It was put together by Elton Gallegly and Lamar Smith, who are both huge restrictionists. Gallegly isn't running for reelection, happily, and Obama's action here is something of a poke in his eye.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:25 PM on June 16, 2012

Is immigrating into this country legally a lot harder than it was in the late 1940's?


Oh my god, yes. Entering this country legally can happen if:

-You marry an american citizen (if you are poor you very likely can't travel or speak English, so the chances of falling in love with an American are very slim)
-You are exceptionally skilled, like in nuclear physics or any really hardcore subject in which there aren't enough Americans interested (hard if you are a poor person who barely knows how to read, let alone do calculus)
-Your parents/siblings or children are already American citizens (and even so, it takes ~15 years and there are age and marriage status restrictions)
-* You have 1 million available for investment within the US

So, the rules are set so all people who are desperate enough to leave their home countries and families due to economic hardship or violence have absolutely no change to get in legally, given that they 1. are likely not educated 2. cannot afford the fees.

*you can also hire a coyote, enter the country illegally(good luck!) and claim to be a victim of political persecution/in lethal danger, but be ready to be rejected right away, or endure years of expensive paperwork with interviews in which you have to relive trauma, provide police reports and almost get a letter from your persecutors saying they are persecuting you for realz. If you are just a starving farmer, tough titties. Go starve.
posted by Tarumba at 2:38 PM on June 16, 2012

check this pretty good graphic for better understanding.
posted by Tarumba at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2012

Unitary Executive for the GOP, Treason for Thee!
posted by stratastar at 4:33 PM on June 16, 2012

so it takes Barack Obama and his team are smacked with the reality that he is losing the 2012 elections to do an about face on their OWN fascist policies. am happy for all the families that have long suffered under the horrible threat of deportation. but this, THIS IS A PURELY CYNICAL POLITICAL MOVE.

i have to read the directive completely to see where the loopholes are, but let me just say THIS STILL DOESN'T WASH OBAMA HANDS OF ALL THE RAPE TREES THAT LITTER OUR BORDERS.
posted by liza at 7:31 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I strongly disagree with the idea that Obama's immigration policies are fascist. Enforcing immigration law is not at all the same thing as genocide or ethnic cleansing.

However, I am quite disturbed to learn that the phrase "Rape Trees" has a real meaning, all the links I'm seeing on it sound a bit urban legendy though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:49 PM on June 16, 2012

I was assaulted today two ways. The first was receiving Time Magazine yet again in the mail even though I cancelled it a month ago. The second was its cover story, "We Are Americans* *Just not legally". Inside it is titled "Not Legal / Not Leaving". I read it anyway. I've linked it here but it has more impact in the magazine with all its print sidebars.

The highly biased, although obvious and admitted, article was written by that writer who came out a year ago as ILLEGAL, and he is surprised himself that he hasn't been deported or even officially contacted. He claims there are 11.5 million ILLEGALS in the US.

He is also surprised that he is not noticed by the TSA when flying; the TSA does not have him on any list and never thoroughly checks his passport to find that he does not have a valid visa to be in the US.

So much for the TSA.

In sidebars (pages 36 and 41), thirteen named and pictured ILLEGALS, all apparently in their later 20s, give statements of "I want to contribute to this country as a history teacher" "I hope to go on to become a doctor" "I'm a chemical engineer and an advocate for human and civil rights" "I want to be a member of Congress" "I want to push the law to advance justice" "I want to use art to empower my community" "My dream is to become a naturopathic doctor" "I would love to be a motivational speaker" "I want to become a social worker" "I want to be the change that I want to see in the world" "My dream is to be able to be a musical therapist" "I want to be a tattoo artist and a poet" and "I want to be a dancer". The article does not list what they are doing now.

Deliberate, brazen, arrogant, belligerent, violators of US laws.

I will cancel Time a second time on Monday.
posted by caclwmr4 at 11:54 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

There are many ways for non-American Citizens to enter and reside in The United States legally, and in many cases, become full Citizens. Too many ways, in my opinion, but that is another topic. I did not say too many legal immigrants. There are approximately one million new legal immigrants every year.

The primary purpose and the fundamental duty of the Federal government of these United States of America is to enforce the borders of the nation. All other functions of government at every level require and assume secure borders.

Without enforced borders, there is no nation.

Choose your position:

1) let everyone on Earth enter the United States of America and make them Citizens instantly

2) give halfassed "work permits" to ILLEGALS, instruct agencies of government to ignore Federal laws regarding ILLEGALS, ignore States who capture ILLEGALS and attempt to turn them over to the Federal government, and prosecute States trying to enforce their own borders, in clear violation of your Oath of Office, whenever careful studies of your falling election polls indicate you could get a few more votes. This will never work and will never stop the continuing bleating of ILLEGALS in general and especially in workplace issues, and renders worthless all legal methods of entering and residing in the United States.

3) Protect the borders, enforce the laws, and deport ILLEGALS - which is the fundamental law of and since the founding of the country itself.

Your choice is truly only (1) or (3). Make your choice and get it over with!

Protecting and enforcing the borders of the United States is something which every American Citizen should know and rely on as the most fundamental duty of the government. I could say this was something which should "unite us all", for all Citizens - but this is not even something that "unites" Citizens - it is simply fundamental to all Citizens. All Citizens, of all races, of all classes, of all socio-enonomic strata.

Whether you consider yourself "liberal", "conservative", "Democrat", "Republican", "Libertarian", "centrist", "independent", "undecided", "complete idiot", "left-wing", or "right-wing", protecting the borders and removing ILLEGALS is fundamental to the nation, the government, and every Citizen - or the country dissolves into anarchy. We see this now, from border patrols angry and disillusioned but unwilling to rock their boat and their salaries, and with a President violating the laws and his Oath of Office while angrily stating "This is the Right Thing To Do" with a hate stare, and persons working in all government levels in-between.

What is the best word for persons who preserve, protect, and defend ILLEGALS? I don't know. "UnAmerican" and "Anti-American" and possibly "Anarchist" come to my mind for those persons.
posted by caclwmr4 at 11:54 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I actually kind of agree with a bit of that, the part where we should really choose 1 or 3. (1 is my preference, not quite instant citizenship but a clear legal path)

As it is, the psuedo-legality creates all kinds of problems. Workers aren't getting protection against abuse from employers, and they aren't paying all of the same taxes as citizens while still taking advantage of the services. Well, some of the services, some they are denied access to even though we have them here working for our businesses and we should be taking care of them for the general welfare.

It's a mess, I wish we could get to a solution either way. If we go with 3, it will be an economic shockwave but the labor market and consumer prices will eventually adjust to the new reality.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:15 AM on June 17, 2012

I really don't know what it is about this issue that makes people turn into frothing idiots. Caclwmr4 is one of the better ones; at least he cares enough to use the spell checker.
posted by moammargaret at 7:39 AM on June 17, 2012

All this bitching about illegal immigrants sounds incredibly ignorant. We've always had various visa classes designed for various purposes with the visa class for poorly paid farm workers being INS ignores them. You lose all your "bitch about big government" privileges when you propose such a massive increase in federal bureaucracy.

There was a slashdot thread about the H-1B Visa supply for 2013 being excused six months early in which commenters' explained that "in Switzerland pretty much anybody can get a work permit provided they will be paid above the average rate for the job", so companies can hire absolutely whoever they want whenever they want but they cannot undercut native worker's salaries by hiring foreign workers.

I'd expect the Swiss immigration services ignore migrant farm labor as well, that's simply a visa class not worth the cost of regulating.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:22 AM on June 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

WaPo: The Republican presidential candidate was asked three times in an interview on CBS’ ”Face the Nation” whether he would overturn the executive order issued Friday if he’s elected in the fall. He refused to directly answer.
-
He explained the order would become irrelevant “by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution, with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be, not just for the term of a president but on a permanent basis.”

posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:02 PM on June 17, 2012

The Republican presidential candidate was asked three times in an interview on CBS’ ”Face the Nation” whether he would overturn the executive order issued Friday if he’s elected in the fall. He refused to directly answer.

So he's chosen the indecisive route. I guess his handlers have calculated that there are more racists who will vote for him than Latinos voting for Obama in swing states.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:48 PM on June 17, 2012

HuffPo: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) may decide not to introduce his planned legislation on undocumented youth in light of President Barack Obama's announcement on deportations, an aide for the senator confirmed Friday.
-
Rubio issued a statement Friday calling the announcement "welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer," but arguing that it could derail legislation on the issue.

"There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future," he said. "This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:41 PM on June 17, 2012

The primary purpose and the fundamental duty of the Federal government of these United States of America is to enforce the borders of the nation.

That's an interesting claim. Did you realize that you used the word "fundamental" five times, and before this comment they were the only appearances of the word on this page? You also failed to make any argument for why strict and narrow immigration is some sort of axiomatic requirement of nationhood. Note that I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying that bold repetition doesn't improve your claim. It's still an unsupported claim, and good luck finding support.

Please stop with the "ILLEGALS" thing. It makes your text harder to read. Maybe you intend it to be demeaning and provocative (which it is), and maybe you're fine with just being annoying and not actually engaging in good faith, but I'm going to assume that you came here in good faith. Others have already told you that it's problematic, so we'd appreciate it if you'd stop. If you want an alternate term, you can use any of "undocumented immigrant," "immigrant of unknown legal status," or "immigrant without a valid visa" depending on the context.

Oh, and total magazine aside for caclwmr4: I'll let you in on a little secret about some kinds of magazines. They sell their advertisements based on a subscriber base. So a magazine with > 100k "subscribers" can sell more/better advertising than one with > 10k. It doesn't matter if those "subscribers" are actually paying or reading—the advertisements dwarf the subscriber fees and print costs. They (the publishers) just need to be able to plausibly claim them as subscribers when selling ads. Another wrinkle is that these magazines sometimes pay other companies to keep their subscriber numbers up, so often they don't have strong (or quick) control over how you got their magazine or from whom. They're selling your eyeballs, and they don't really care if your eyeballs are happy. So call them all you want, but expect it to take a few months for it to stop arriving, and don't be surprised if you start receiving it again because of some cross-promotion they ran with some brand/cause you bought something from or donated to.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 6:35 AM on June 18, 2012

Obama Immigration Policy Favored 2-to-1 by Likely Voters
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:30 PM on June 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

NY Times: “Houston is home,” Jeffrey said during recess, in English. “The houses and stuff here, it’s all a little strange. I feel, like, uncomfortable.”

Never before has Mexico seen so many American Jeffreys, Jennifers and Aidens in its classrooms. The wave of deportations in the past few years, along with tougher state laws and persistent unemployment, have all created a mass exodus of Mexican parents who are leaving with their American sons and daughters.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:30 PM on June 19, 2012

Two California teens spared deportation under new Obama policy
posted by homunculus at 9:38 AM on June 20, 2012

When spoiled kids whine: Saying the White House "can't not give us a pass," Tucker Carlson shows why we need a better class of rich people
posted by homunculus at 12:39 PM on June 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Jon Kyl Blames Obama For Failure Of Immigration Reform Under Bush

I can only guess that Kyl's remark was not intended to be a factual statement.
posted by homunculus at 12:47 PM on June 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama’s Deportation Two Step: By giving a reprieve to 800,000 undocumented immigrants, the president put out a fire of his own making. How Obama’s immigration enforcement policies got away from him.
posted by homunculus at 5:40 PM on June 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

XQUZYPHYR: "Last month during a tour in Brazil, World Wrestling Entertainment suspended one of their "bad guy" wrestlers, Chris Jericho, for stomping on a Brazilian flag during a promo. He was banned from all programs for 30 days.

This afternoon a self-titled "reporter" for a blog run by a right-wing pundit literally interrupted the President of the United States as he was making a press statement, in his capacity as a self-titled "reporter." Skipping the fact that this person even had press credentials to begin with, he will likely still have them tomorrow.

I just felt like saying these two things in regards to the current state of our media."

Well, it's not illegal in the U.S. to disrespect the President, just super direspectful and douchebaggy.

Chris Jericho (who's also been fond of using slurs like Hadji and fag out of character) actually broke a Brazillian law doing what he did.
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:51 PM on July 2, 2012