• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Buckwheat Grants Amnesty/Immunity To Illegals

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Wonder what the left think of this??? :lol: :lol:

Circumventing Congress???????? :lol:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.



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.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to announce the new policy today, one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.

Obama planned to discuss the new policy this afternoon from the White House Rose Garden.

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 a GED, 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 officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.

The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods. It tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the DREAM Act.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Is this really what EXECUTIVE ORDERS are for? He can't get the Dream Act through Congress so he just writes an order to do it without Congressional approval. :x

I can see an Exective order when the Congress is not sitting and an EMERGENCY comes up that has to be handled but to side step a negitive vote that the Congress did hold. That is just WRONG and he should be impeached for thumbing his nose at a dutifully elected Congress. The way he is running the Government why bother paying the Congress he is acting like a DICTATOR!!!!!!

Buying the Latino vote one illegal family member at a time. :mad:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
BTW every time the Democrats wants to sell the Dream Act concept they preach these ILLEGALS are in the US by "NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN" as it was their parents that brought them here. They claim it is just wrong to punish these ILLEGALS for something that their LAW BREAKING parents did.

So I ask the Liberals why if these known Illegals can not be punished for something their parents illegally did while they were to small to stop them from doing it, Why is it Children at the death of their parents are held responsible for the debt their parents racked up when their children had no say about their spending habits? Children are held responsible for their parents actions all the time why aren't ILLEGALS.

The Dems want to buy votes at the expence of the US economy. The other day they were talking about the unemployment rate among high school students and blacks and how bad it is. What would happen to that rate if Obama deported 800,000 ILLEGALS back to Mexico and openned up the jobs they have to those US CITIZENS?
Obama is buying future Democrat votes with every ILLEGAL he grants to stay in the US. :mad:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Give oldtimer a little time,,, Bet he will try and find some obscure past ruling someplace,, totally unrelated that will exonerate his hero, at least in oldtimers mind
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Hop just let Oldtimer try and well he is at it maybe he could find something to explain this Obama quote

"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," March of 2011.

A year ago there were laws on the books that prohibited the actions he took but magically today due to his poll numbers slipping, those laws disappeared. And if Janet Napolitano thinks people are going to believe these action had nothing to do with politics, she is nuts. I guess the fact he is meeting with Latino leaders to shore up their support next week is just a fluke. :wink: :roll:

Like I have said before if Janet Napolitano opens her mouth you can guarantee what comes out needs to be investigated for the REST OF THE STORY. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

Actually I don't agree with Obama's actions- EXCEPT for the allowing of those that have served in the military to stay in the country without fear of deportation... If we're going to ask them/allow them to serve our country in the military and fight for our country- we should allow them to live in our country....

Give oldtimer a little time,,, Bet he will try and find some obscure past ruling someplace,, totally unrelated that will exonerate his hero, at least in oldtimers mind

As far as precedence goes- the US immigration law probably has the most precedence of Presidents and Administrations using prosecutorial discretion than any other law...
Going back to WWII when illegals were overlooked because of the need for a labor force that had been taken up by the war...
Then Ikes Operation Wetback that was used to remove these workers so the returning veterans could find work....

But the biggest prosecutorial discretion came about after Ronald Reagan signed the last major Amnesty law..

President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The laws was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today.
Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.120 , Nov 15, 2010

In 1986 I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because we were told it would solve the problem of massive illegal immigration. In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:
The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.126 , Dec 18, 2007


This law was supposed to stop illegal immigration by prosecuting those that hired illegals-- but Reagan, nor any President since him has enforced it...The Presidents/politicians don't have the cajones to take on the Walmarts, Tysons, National Chamber of Commerce, and all the other rich folk that want access to their cheap business employees and gardners, pool boys, maids, nannies, etal......
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Obama admitted he had no authority to do this last year so what has changed, other than his poll ratings, to make him think he now has the authority to do it? And will you Oldtimer support him in Nov. when he knownly broke the law to bolster his latino support by breaking laws that he KNOWS are on the books? What law is next to be broken to garner support for his re-election bid? :? :x
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

Actually I don't agree with Obama's actions- EXCEPT for the allowing of those that have served in the military to stay in the country without fear of deportation... If we're going to ask them/allow them to serve our country in the military and fight for our country- we should allow them to live in our country....

Give oldtimer a little time,,, Bet he will try and find some obscure past ruling someplace,, totally unrelated that will exonerate his hero, at least in oldtimers mind

As far as precedence goes- the US immigration law probably has the most precedence of Presidents and Administrations using prosecutorial discretion than any other law...
Going back to WWII when illegals were overlooked because of the need for a labor force that had been taken up by the war...
Then Ikes Operation Wetback that was used to remove these workers so the returning veterans could find work....

But the biggest prosecutorial discretion came about after Ronald Reagan signed the last major Amnesty law..

President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The laws was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today.
Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.120 , Nov 15, 2010

In 1986 I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because we were told it would solve the problem of massive illegal immigration. In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:
The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.126 , Dec 18, 2007


This law was supposed to stop illegal immigration by prosecuting those that hired illegals-- but Reagan, nor any President since him has enforced it...The Presidents/politicians don't have the cajones to take on the Walmarts, Tysons, National Chamber of Commerce, and all the other rich folk that want access to their cheap business employees and gardners, pool boys, maids, nannies, etal......



See i told you he would find some reason to get obaba off the hook!!!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Obama admitted he had no authority to do this last year so what has changed, other than his poll ratings, to make him think he now has the authority to do it? And will you Oldtimer support him in Nov. when he knownly broke the law to bolster his latino support by breaking laws that he KNOWS are on the books? What law is next to be broken to garner support for his re-election bid? :? :x

Prosecutorial discretion has went on since the country was formed..Not only in Federal but even State and Local government....Each administrator decides to what extent they want to enforce/enact the differing laws...(With GW it was deciding to give lax oversight over the Wall Street Banking crew and lending institutions...)
You'd have to have triple the law enforcement if you went out and tried to strictly enforce every law on the books- so for that reason administrators set priorities...

President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The laws was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today.
Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.120 , Nov 15, 2010



In 1986 I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because we were told it would solve the problem of massive illegal immigration. In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:
The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.126 , Dec 18, 2007

And as I said- lax or no enforcement of immigration laws has history going back for quite some time...NO President from Reagan on has enforced the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law- of both parties...Not Reagan, Bush 1 or 2, Clinton, or Obama...

So this does not surprise me....As I've long said- neither party wants to stop illegal immigation...The Dems want more votes- the Repubs want to keep their rich folk access to cheap semi slave labor...
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
0
Location
Heart of Texas
OT you must not have hired a mexican worker lately. I have and they don't work cheap. They're not the dumb, starved people anymore. They too have learned the ropes. Only difference is that they WILL work.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Don't we remember all the meat packing house raids during Bush? :lol:


When Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials raided the Yamato Engine manufacturing plant in Bellingham, Washington in February, it wasn’t just the 28 workers they arrested who were taken by surprise. The Department of Homeland Security in Washington — of which ICE is a part — didn’t know the raid was going to happen, either.

“I didn’t know about it beforehand,” DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told the House Homeland Security Committee the next morning. “I want to get to the bottom of this as well.”



Napolitano quickly put a hold on the controversial workplace raids, promising to create a new policy.

Last week, she indicated that she’d done just that as DHS issued new guidelines designed to govern the worksite raids. In an accompanying public “fact sheet”, DHS promised to target employers who hire undocumented workers instead of the workers themselves. DHS did not, however, promise to stop raiding worksites or arresting the illegal workers found there, leaving many advocates to wonder if the shift is more than window-dressing for the same old policy.

After all, President Bush’s Homeland Security Department had similarly pledged to target employers who hire illegal workers. “The days of treating employers who violate these laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket – those days are gone,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in November 2007. “It’s now felonies, jail time, fines, and forfeitures.”

So how different are the new guidelines, and what do they signal about the administration’s support for a significant change in immigration policy?

“They’re saying they’re going to shift the focus from employees to employers,” said Jennifer Gordon, a law professor at Fordham University. “But they’re also explicitly saying they’re going to continue to carry out raids. If I were looking for guidance, I wouldn’t really know how to read that policy. Does it mean we’re not really doing raids, but not giving them up? I have a hard time reading into that.”

Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies which advocates cracking down on illegal immigration and opposes legalization, agrees that the guidelines don’t represent a major change. “The new enforcement guidelines weren’t as bad as the anti-enforcement advocates hoped they’d be,” he said. “It made clear that illegal immigrants caught up in an enforcement action directed against an employer would still be taken into custody and deported.” The emphasis on employers, he says, “is not that new. Previous management at ICE had pursued criminal prosecution of employers as well.”

The guidelines do expand the use of so-called humanitarian guidelines developed by the Bush administration — designed to prevent prolonged imprisonment or deportation of some undocumented immigrants who are sole caregivers for small children or sick relatives — by applying them to workplaces with 25 or more illegal workers, rather than using the previous threshold of 150 illegal workers. Still, it doesn’t say that even these workers won’t be arrested, imprisoned or deported.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Obama admitted he had no authority to do this last year so what has changed, other than his poll ratings, to make him think he now has the authority to do it? And will you Oldtimer support him in Nov. when he knownly broke the law to bolster his latino support by breaking laws that he KNOWS are on the books? What law is next to be broken to garner support for his re-election bid? :? :x

Prosecutorial discretion has went on since the country was formed..Not only in Federal but even State and Local government....Each administrator decides to what extent they want to enforce/enact the differing laws...(With GW it was deciding to give lax oversight over the Wall Street Banking crew and lending institutions...)
You'd have to have triple the law enforcement if you went out and tried to strictly enforce every law on the books- so for that reason administrators set priorities...

President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The laws was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today.
Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.120 , Nov 15, 2010



In 1986 I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because we were told it would solve the problem of massive illegal immigration. In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:
The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.126 , Dec 18, 2007

And as I said- lax or no enforcement of immigration laws has history going back for quite some time...NO President from Reagan on has enforced the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law- of both parties...Not Reagan, Bush 1 or 2, Clinton, or Obama...

So this does not surprise me....As I've long said- neither party wants to stop illegal immigation...The Dems want more votes- the Repubs want to keep their rich folk access to cheap semi slave labor...

As I see it, it is one thing to quietly avoid upholding the US immigration laws and letting illegals slip through the holes, that is bad enough. BUT it is quite another to write an EXECUTIVE ORDER to order your top officials to ignore US immigration laws that you know are on the books after the Congress voted NO on the very actions you want to buy votes with. Obama knew he couldn't get what he needed to buy votes from the Latinos by going through the proper channels so he SIDE STEPPED CONGRESS AND DID IT ANYWAY. and this is not the first time and I'll bet it will not be the last. :mad:

BTW Oldtimer is this the CHANGE you voted for?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Obama admitted he had no authority to do this last year so what has changed, other than his poll ratings, to make him think he now has the authority to do it? And will you Oldtimer support him in Nov. when he knownly broke the law to bolster his latino support by breaking laws that he KNOWS are on the books? What law is next to be broken to garner support for his re-election bid? :? :x

Prosecutorial discretion has went on since the country was formed..Not only in Federal but even State and Local government....Each administrator decides to what extent they want to enforce/enact the differing laws...(With GW it was deciding to give lax oversight over the Wall Street Banking crew and lending institutions...)
You'd have to have triple the law enforcement if you went out and tried to strictly enforce every law on the books- so for that reason administrators set priorities...

President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The laws was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today.
Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.120 , Nov 15, 2010



In 1986 I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because we were told it would solve the problem of massive illegal immigration. In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:
The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.126 , Dec 18, 2007

And as I said- lax or no enforcement of immigration laws has history going back for quite some time...NO President from Reagan on has enforced the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law- of both parties...Not Reagan, Bush 1 or 2, Clinton, or Obama...

So this does not surprise me....As I've long said- neither party wants to stop illegal immigation...The Dems want more votes- the Repubs want to keep their rich folk access to cheap semi slave labor...

As I see it, it is one thing to quietly avoid upholding the US immigration laws and letting illegals slip through the holes, that is bad enough. BUT it is quite another to write an EXECUTIVE ORDER to order your top officials to ignore US immigration laws that you know are on the books after the Congress voted NO on the very actions you want to buy votes with. Obama knew he couldn't get what he needed to buy votes from the Latinos by going through the proper channels so he SIDE STEPPED CONGRESS AND DID IT ANYWAY. and this is not the first time and I'll bet it will not be the last. :mad:

BTW Oldtimer is this the CHANGE you voted for?

So you prefer your President or Administration to sneak around and act like they are enforcing the law- rather than openly come out and proclaim what their policy is :???:

No wonder you and I disagree!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Prosecutorial discretion has went on since the country was formed..Not only in Federal but even State and Local government....Each administrator decides to what extent they want to enforce/enact the differing laws...(With GW it was deciding to give lax oversight over the Wall Street Banking crew and lending institutions...)
You'd have to have triple the law enforcement if you went out and tried to strictly enforce every law on the books- so for that reason administrators set priorities...







And as I said- lax or no enforcement of immigration laws has history going back for quite some time...NO President from Reagan on has enforced the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law- of both parties...Not Reagan, Bush 1 or 2, Clinton, or Obama...

So this does not surprise me....As I've long said- neither party wants to stop illegal immigation...The Dems want more votes- the Repubs want to keep their rich folk access to cheap semi slave labor...

As I see it, it is one thing to quietly avoid upholding the US immigration laws and letting illegals slip through the holes, that is bad enough. BUT it is quite another to write an EXECUTIVE ORDER to order your top officials to ignore US immigration laws that you know are on the books after the Congress voted NO on the very actions you want to buy votes with. Obama knew he couldn't get what he needed to buy votes from the Latinos by going through the proper channels so he SIDE STEPPED CONGRESS AND DID IT ANYWAY. and this is not the first time and I'll bet it will not be the last. :mad:

BTW Oldtimer is this the CHANGE you voted for?

So you prefer your President or Administration to sneak around and act like they are enforcing the law- rather than openly come out and proclaim what their policy is :???:

No wonder you and I disagree!
No what I want is the government officials to follow laws and if they want them changed go through the proper process to change them. I also want the President to stay within his authority and not side step any damn law he doesn't want to enforce like Obama is doing by WRITING HIS OWN LAWS.
The Congress voted on the Dream act AND THE ACT FAILED TO PASS :x but like with everything else Obama THINKS he knows better :roll: . Just like he knew everyone would love Obamacare once it was passed and people got a chance to learn more about it. Gee how is that working out for you Oldtimer? As I hear it, a large majority of American voters still want it repealed after they learned what kind of intrusion it is going to make in their health care and what the true cost is going to be.
:roll:

Obama campaigned on bringing CHANGE to Washington and from your own defence of his actions NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Presidents enforce what laws they want and ignor those that hurt them politically. The only CHANGE is Obama is very open and TRANSPARENT with his distain for US laws. If he doesn't get what he wants he does it anyway by writing another EXECUTIVE ORDER. And you continue to defend him by pointing out WELL EVERYONE ELSE DID THE SAME. That is your CHANGE OLDTIMER. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
hypocritexposer said:
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution

"Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Gee I see it says the CONGRESS shall have the power but I don't see where it says the President has a right to override what the Congress voted NO on and do what he damn well wants if it is going to get him a few more votes in a tough re-election battle. But hey Obama is the Contitutional scholar so I guess he is better at reading between the lines to see what the Founding Fathers really meant by CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER. At least that is what Oldtimer would have us believe :wink: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
hypocritexposer said:
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution

"Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Gee I see it says the CONGRESS shall have the power but I don't see where it says the President has a right to override what the Congress voted NO on and do what he damn well wants if it is going to get him a few more votes in a tough re-election battle. But hey Obama is the Contitutional scholar so I guess he is better at reading between the lines to see what the Founding Fathers really meant by CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER. At least that is what Oldtimer would have us believe :wink: :roll:

Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.



Tam- would you show me where in Obamas order it talks about naturalization or changing anything on citizenship.. In fact if you would read it- it especially says it does not affect citizenships..

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

And "prosecutorial discretion" has been used forever by administrators and prosecuting attorneys..
The best example close to you would be in MT in the 70's (remember the 70's in Montana Tam :wink: )- the law made possession of any amount of marijuana a felony...But there were so many folks being arrested with a joint or small amounts- and facing a felony and prison time they all pled not quilty- that the County prosecutors and Judges didn't have time to handle them all let alone any other criminal issues...When the State could not come up with any more money to employ more attorneys and Judges- the prosecutors and Judges started dismissing all the cases or in a lot of counties charging them with a Misdemeanor- like Disorderly Conduct with a $50 fine (which most quickly pled quilty to in order to avoid a felony on their record)....

The state legislature eventually solved the problem by making possession of smaller amounts of marijuana a misdemeanor...But in their absence to act- the administrators had to use prosecutorial discretion in order to keep the state operating...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I listen to the twit say he wrote an Executive order telling HIS Administration to stop deporting people that are ILLEGALLY IN THE US. He and He alone is deciding what US laws his Administration is going to enforce THAT IS NOT HIS JOB OLDTIMER, HIS JOB IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS. :x He even admitted just last year he did not have the authority to do what he just did so I ask again Oldtimer what has changed since last year that made him and YOU think he had the right to pick and choose what laws he was going to enforce?

And you as a ex law man excusing his not enforcing US laws is DISGUSTING and you should be ashamed of yourself :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
I listen to the twit say he wrote an Executive order telling HIS Administration to stop deporting people that are ILLEGALLY IN THE US. He and He alone is deciding what US laws his Administration is going to enforce THAT IS NOT HIS JOB OLDTIMER, HIS JOB IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS. :x He even admitted just last year he did not have the authority to do what he just did so I ask again Oldtimer what has changed since last year that made him and YOU think he had the right to pick and choose what laws he was going to enforce?

And you as a ex law man excusing his not enforcing US laws is DISGUSTING and you should be ashamed of yourself :roll:

Tam- you're living in Dreamland if you think administrators/prosecutors can enforce every local, state, or federal law on the books...They've made prioritizing decisions for years...GW and Christopher Cox turned down funding given to them by Congress to add investigators to the SEC claiming they weren't needed and then overlooked enforcement of numerous laws/regulations against the banking industry http://mostcorrupt.com/Appointees-Cox.htm ...

Agencies/Departments would need 10 times the amount of budgets/manpower to enforce every law on the books...There are laws on the books that date back to horse and buggy days.. The freeing up of the funds and manpower needed to deport these folks with no criminal records can be better used catching and deporting those that are criminals...

the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

In the 90's when budgets were tight- and our entire office gas budget was $750 month/$9000 for the year- we had to set limits on how far we would extradite misdemeanor crimes against property suspects from...In most cases we would not go further than neighboring counties...Even crimes against persons suspects and felons were prioritized- and if the person was deemed not a danger to others often we would not go out of state due to the high costs of extradition- and lack of manpower...

The S.O. also quit enforcement of traffic law and responding to non injury accidents (leaving that to the H.P.'s)..That was all done under Prosecutorial discretion/Administrative discretion because both tied up too much manpower that was better used for criminal investigation...And we were backed by the county fathers, prosecutors, and Judges... Several counties had to go this route...

And really Tam- you who claim to be the "Conservative Queen"- do you really want the Federal government to start enforcing every law on the book :???:

Do you know what it would cost the taxpayers to enforce every law on the books :???:
 

Latest posts

Top