Obama Fought The Law..

[*bfine32*]

...and the Law won.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/05/federal_appeals_court_refuses.html

Quote:A federal appeals court in New Orleans refused Tuesday (May 26) to lift a temporary hold on President Barack Obama's executive action that could shield as many as 5 million immigrants illegally living in the U.S. from deportation.

The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal is far from the final word; more arguments on the merits of the case are tentatively set at the 5th Circuit for early July.

But immigrant advocates decried the continued roadblock on Obama's actions. And, White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said the two-judge majority in Tuesday's ruling "chose to misinterpret the facts and the law."

Obama announced the executive action in November, saying lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own.

[Belsnickel]

I am glad. Whether or not he has the authority to do what he did, I am not certain. However, I believe things should not take effect for something being contested like this until the controversy is resolved. Closing the flood gates after they have been opened is difficult.

[Yojimbo]

(05-26-2015, 10:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am glad. Whether or not he has the authority to do what he did, I am not certain. However, I believe things should not take effect for something being contested like this until the controversy is resolved. Closing the flood gates after they have been opened is difficult.

Whole heartedly agree.

[Benton]

(05-26-2015, 10:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am glad. Whether or not he has the authority to do what he did, I am not certain. However, I believe things should not take effect for something being contested like this until the controversy is resolved. Closing the flood gates after they have been opened is difficult.

Now if there was just some way to make Congress deal with an issue instead of just ignoring it for 2-3 decades.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2015, 12:20 AM)Benton Wrote: Now if there was just some way to make Congress deal with an issue instead of just ignoring it for 2-3 decades.

Congress won't fix it because they both benefit from the current situation. The GOP gets a pool of cheap labor for their business oriented constituents and they get a wedge issue to fire up their base. The Dems get a growing voting block that's reliably in their corner and the GOP reaction allows them to paint the GOP as racist. The problem is there's a limit to how many immigrants any country can absorb in a certain time frame until it's no longer the country people immigrated to. My biggest concern isn't ethnicity as some would automatically assume, it's lack of a shared language. Once a nation no longer has one shared language you no longer have a nation.

[Yojimbo]

The only fix for this problem is for the government to aggressively go after employers and dry up the job market that is attracting migrant workers (not that it has any desire to do that). Easier said than done, but until that problem is fixed, deporting and building fences won't discourage illegal immigration.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-27-2015, 12:20 AM)Benton Wrote: Now if there was just some way to make Congress deal with an issue instead of just ignoring it for 2-3 decades.

There is..... Choose either open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both... So either cut benefits or secure the border.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-27-2015, 01:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Congress won't fix it because they both benefit from the current situation.  The GOP gets a pool of cheap labor for their business oriented constituents and they get a wedge issue to fire up their base.  The Dems get a growing voting block that's reliably in their corner and the GOP reaction allows them to paint the GOP as racist.  The problem is there's a limit to how many immigrants any country can absorb in a certain time frame until it's no longer the country people immigrated to.  My biggest concern isn't ethnicity as some would automatically assume, it's lack of a shared language.  Once a nation no longer has one shared language you no longer have a nation.

I agree with some of your points. But Mexicans are conservative by nature. They don't agree with stuff like gay marriage, abortions, etc.

Just like blacks kept california from having gay marriage in 2008. They came out to vote for obama and blacks hate gays... They are the most homophobic group out there ...

[StLucieBengal]

(05-26-2015, 10:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am glad. Whether or not he has the authority to do what he did, I am not certain. However, I believe things should not take effect for something being contested like this until the controversy is resolved. Closing the flood gates after they have been opened is difficult.

Your spot on..... It's a joke. They gotta take away all this executive action stuff away. Too much power is in that office. Btw we can thank woodrow wilson for that..... He started this erosion.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 04:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is..... Choose either open borders or a welfare state.   You can't have both... So either cut benefits or secure the border.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Do-undocumented-immigrants-really-exploit-welfare-295925551.html

Quote:Do undocumented immigrants really exploit welfare?

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 9, a proposed law that the state Senate summarizes as requiring “identification of lawful presence in the United States as a prerequisite to the receipt of public benefits.” That is to say: It insists upon checking that people applying for welfare are legal residents, not undocumented immigrants.

Seems like common sense, doesn’t it? We want to prevent waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars. And while that’s a particularly familiar refrain from Republican politicians, SB 9 is a bipartisan measure: A majority of the Democrats in the state Senate have signed on, too. After all, nobody likes freeloaders, right? The notion that people are coming into the United States outside of the legal immigration process, not paying taxes, and still receiving public benefits is hard to stomach.

I’d certainly be banging my fist in favor of that bill, if the problem it addresses were actually real. That’s the sticky part, though: Undocumented immigrants receiving welfare benefits they haven’t paid for sounds like a real problem.

But it’s not.

That’s been hard for me to wrap my head around. Before I researched SB 9, I was under the misapprehension that undocumented immigrants all get paid in cash under the table and, thus, don’t pay any taxes.

Wrong. As the saying goes: That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.

Noncitizens don’t have Social Security numbers, but lots of noncitizens do earn United States income: foreign investors, for instance, as well as legal resident aliens. And the IRS gets to tax that income. Ever since 1996, the IRS has provided numbers called ITINs—individual taxpayer identification numbers—to noncitizens who apply for them. And the IRS has nothing to do with enforcing immigration, so millions of undocumented immigrants—who want to pay taxes honestly because they’re hoping someday they’ll be allowed to become citizens—have been assigned those numbers through their employers.

That’s the first thing to remember: The people who are so often dehumanized as “illegals” do, in fact, pay income tax in large numbers.
Here’s the second thing: You already have to present some form of identification before you can qualify for welfare benefits, such as food stamps. You can show a valid state-issued photo ID, but since some people don’t have one—particularly if they’re elderly or very poor—the state is able to accept alternate identification via some combination of birth certificate, Social Security card, utility bills, local library card, etc. Senate Bill 9 would do away with those alternatives and insist on only accepting state-issued ID, despite the fact that there are actual U.S. citizens without one.
In other words: It’s just like the voter-ID laws that swept the country earlier this decade, but for food stamps instead of voting.
And just like those voter-ID laws, it’s a solution for a problem that only exists as a rhetorical talking point, not as an actual reality.
The Social Security Administration’s chief actuary, Stephen Goss, explained in November to the Daily Beast: “Unauthorized immigrants contribute positively to the financing of Social Security not only in terms of their own contributions, but in the succeeding generations when they have children on our soil that are citizens from day one.”

Currently, the Social Security Administration estimates that undocumented immigrants pay $15 billion per year into the system—“with no intention of ever collecting benefits,” Goss told CNN. The Congressional Budget Office agrees, saying that whatever impact undocumented immigrants have on welfare fraud is “modest” at best.

So the vast majority of undocumented immigrants pay taxes like good Americans, yet don’t ever pull any benefits out. It’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make in order to live in this country.

When you put it that way, doesn’t it seems bizarre and nasty that politicians are constantly picking on them?

One of Senate Bill 9’s sponsors, state Sen. Pat Stefano (R-Fayette), points out that Pennsylvania has, in fact, been cited for paying out benefits to undocumented immigrants. In January, the state agreed to pay the federal government $48.8 million to settle a dispute over having paid improper welfare benefits between 2004 and 2010.

Of course, that one-time fine covering seven years’ worth of violations is less than one-tenth of one percent—less than one thousandth—of Pennsylvania’s annual budget which, this year alone, is expected to be about $80 billion. And, structurally speaking, isn’t that what the federal government is supposed to do—enforce federal law? So why does the state need to spend millions of new enforcement dollars via SB 9 to add another layer of bureaucracy?

Stefano’s chief of staff, Benjamen Wren, tells PW that while “federal law already dictates who is and is not eligible to receive certain public benefits, this legislation ensures that Pennsylvania allocates these benefits in accordance with pre-existing federal laws governing the benefit programs our state administers.”

But Pennsylvania already has requirements that comply with federal law. It’s just that, in a system so large, you can’t eliminate every single mistake.

Wren is quick to add that SB 9 “provides compassionate exceptions to its tough restrictions”—that is, it threatens jail time only to adults, not minors, who violate the law. In addition, even undocumented kids are allowed to get measles vaccinations and go to school. Oh, and the bill would exempt seniors who are Medicare-eligible, as well as disabled Pennsylvanians who are receiving SSI or SSDI. Also, Wren says, SB 9 would “allow every person in Pennsylvania access to emergency medical care, necessary immunizations, and disaster relief.”
So, to recap, this bill exempts a whole lot of people who already receive benefits, it exempts children, it reiterates a federal law that’s already been around for nearly 20 years—and it’s got immigrant advocacy organizations fuming. (“The system is already built to deny undocumented immigrants benefits,” says Erika Almiron, executive director of the Philadelphia-based group Juntos.)

What’s the real deal, then? Why do we need this bill?

Well, it’s simple, really. The only way SB 9 makes sense is if you want to score cheap political points by flexing your muscles, bully-style, at an easily maligned group in America—undocumented immigrants—that isn’t empowered to stand up for itself.

I had to wonder: Since Sen. Stefano seems so concerned with that fine Pennsylvania had to pay the feds—so committed to our fiscal responsibility—does he also favor closing other budgetary loopholes? For instance: Pennsylvania is the only state with fracking that doesn’t impose a severance tax on the oil and gas companies. But no: The senator doesn’t support any additional taxes on fracking, though every other state does it, and though it’s been estimated that taxing natural gas and oil extraction could bring $1 billion per year into the state’s coffers.

Then again, poor, disenfranchised, non-English-speaking minority communities don’t have slick lobbyists and don’t make large campaign contributions.

Read more: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Do-undocumented-immigrants-really-exploit-welfare-295925551.html#ixzz3bKoaJIH8

[BmorePat87]

(05-26-2015, 10:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am glad. Whether or not he has the authority to do what he did, I am not certain. However, I believe things should not take effect for something being contested like this until the controversy is resolved. Closing the flood gates after they have been opened is difficult.

Yea, the ruling didn't come as a surprise. Put a hold on the executive order until they actual hear the arguments from both sides. It makes sense.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-27-2015, 04:52 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I agree with some of your points.   But Mexicans are conservative by nature. They don't agree with stuff like gay marriage, abortions, etc.  

Just like blacks kept california from having gay marriage in 2008.  They came out to vote for obama and blacks hate gays... They are the most homophobic group out there ...

They may be socially conservative, but they are voting Dem all the way. Like SSF said, neither side is really interested in stopping this.

Personally I'm happy to take all the immigrants we can handle from whatever country, but the coming here illegally just really bugs the crap out of me. And then the "rights" for illegals like drivers licenses just baffles me beyond belief. A person gets to walk into a government office, announce they are here illegally, and walk out with a driver's license? WTF?

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 09:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They may be socially conservative, but they are voting Dem all the way.  Like SSF said, neither side is really interested in stopping this.  

Personally I'm happy to take all the immigrants we can handle from whatever country, but the coming here illegally just really bugs the crap out of me.  And then the "rights" for illegals like drivers licenses just baffles me beyond belief.  A person gets to walk into a government office, announce they are here illegally, and walk out with a driver's license?  WTF?

That used to really bug me too, but I've thought differently after talking to some ICE officers here. The cost for deportation of all illegals and the steps necessary to keep them from coming back into the country is tremendous. The time and resources they use just rounding up those that commit other crimes is fairly significant. So while it is ideal to have only legal immigrants here, it isn't all that feasible. Our borders are large because we are a geographically large country and that makes things much more complicated.

On the DL front specifically, if they are going to be here because the resources aren't there to get all of them out of here and keep them out, then we ought to do things like this. For one, it does help us get a better grasp on the situation because they can track the data. But it also allows us to try to regulate them driving just as we do any other citizen. I can tell you from personal experience that areas with a high volume of illegal immigrants will have situations arising on a regular basis of hit and runs or uninsured motorists causing accidents because they are not licensed drivers. Getting them licensed helps to make them at least partially responsible for their actions behind the wheel.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I should also note that this conversation was had at a local Mexican restaurant which is literally right next to the ICE offices.

[Benton]

(05-27-2015, 04:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is..... Choose either open borders or a welfare state.   You can't have both... So either cut benefits or secure the border.

Eh, not really.

There's a lot in between those extremes. Like funding immigration agencies already established so they can do their jobs of processing workers and either a- making sure they're gainfully employed and paying taxes or b- deported when their "vacation" is over. Bam. Problem (mostly) solved. I haven't seen any numbers, but I wonder if the taxes many workers aren't paying (because they're working jobs paying cash and outside the purview of USCIS) would cover the cost of the employees who are supposed to be regulating them?

Undocumented workers do still pay taxes. Sales taxes, gas taxes, sin taxes, some pay payroll taxes, indirect property tax (if they're renting somewhere which someone is legally paying for). To say they aren't being taxed and receiving benefits is incorrect.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 09:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: On the DL front specifically, if they are going to be here because the resources aren't there to get all of them out of here and keep them out, then we ought to do things like this. For one, it does help us get a better grasp on the situation because they can track the data. But it also allows us to try to regulate them driving just as we do any other citizen.

This.

A DL does not give them any benefits at all. It just allows us to hold them responsible under the law. Don't know why anyone would be against this.

[Benton]

(05-27-2015, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

A DL does not give them any benefits at all.  It just allows us to hold them responsible under the law.  Don't know why anyone would be against this.

There's a lot of opposition. It's pretty common when someone gets in a collision with an non-resident without a driver's license, they blame it on immigration controls, rationalizing it that 'this never would have happened if that person had stayed in their country.'

Of course — if we let them get DL's and required them to learn how to drive, instead of just supporting a system that encourages people to do it illegally — that should cut down. But upset people, especially those who have lost a loved one in a crash with an illegal alien, don't always think rationally.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 12:46 PM)Benton Wrote: There's a lot of opposition. It's pretty common when someone gets in a collision with an non-resident without a driver's license, they blame it on immigration controls, rationalizing it that 'this never would have happened if that person had stayed in their country.'

Of course — if we let them get DL's and required them to learn how to drive, instead of just supporting a system that encourages people to do it illegally — that should cut down. But upset people, especially those who have lost a loved one in a crash with an illegal alien, don't always think rationally.

There is a large immigrant worker population in this area. They can't get insurance without a DL. It is crazy to make them drive without insurance instead of allowing them to get a license.

In fact the State of Tennessee assigns a DL number to any person who is caught driving without a license to keep track of multiple offenses.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-27-2015, 09:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They may be socially conservative, but they are voting Dem all the way.  Like SSF said, neither side is really interested in stopping this.  

Personally I'm happy to take all the immigrants we can handle from whatever country, but the coming here illegally just really bugs the crap out of me.  And then the "rights" for illegals like drivers licenses just baffles me beyond belief.  A person gets to walk into a government office, announce they are here illegally, and walk out with a driver's license?  WTF?

Yeah it bugs me too. My gf did the legal way and is still going through check points.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-27-2015, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

A DL does not give them any benefits at all.  It just allows us to hold them responsible under the law.  Don't know why anyone would be against this.

It's bothersome. "Hey I'm here illegally." "OK no problem." It may be the best way, I can't say, but it still bugs me.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 01:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's bothersome.  "Hey I'm here illegally."  "OK no problem."  It may be the best way, I can't say, but it still bugs me.

Honestly, I can completely understand being bugged by this. But the problem is how difficult it is to take care of the situation with the budget situation. All of ICE consists of 0.15% of the federal budget, about 9% of the total DHS budget. Of course, they are also customs enforcement, not just immigration. Considering the borders are a part of our defense of this country it is interesting to think about that in comparison to the 14-17% (depending on figures used) that the DoD gets of the federal budget.

If we really want to handle the immigration problem it will cost money, money they just aren't putting into the department and the agency.