Obama's Brilliant Immigration Move

"How can you tell those Americans to go back to a home they never knew?"

"We are takin' our country baaack!!!!"

The short answer is, they don't give a fuck.  We're talking about brown kids here, and as far as the average white American is concerned, "nits make lice."

This is such a large issue that has been all but ignored for years and now the web cannot talk about anything else except for economic Armageddon and food stamps and....

I was reading about Alabama today. I mean that state not only got rid of the 'illegals' but their relatives also left their 'posts'.

Now the tyrants claim that unemployment has gone from about 9.5% to 7.2%. So citizens have been applying for the jobs abandoned by the immigrants.

But they are having problems keeping the new employees.

The one wonderful stat listed was that tomato pickers make $16.00 for every filled crate. And then the article states that a good picker can only fill two or three crates. Well I am not great math wiz but $32.00 would translate to four bucks an hour. And there would be withholding?

And the descriptions of the headless chickens being defeathered as they go down the assembly line by workers (with a real talent for this feat that I would never master) makes me ill. Think of the smells and the germs and the....all for five bucks an hour?

Why do demons crawl out of my head every time I think about this? And plantations were destroyed 150 years ago.

It is hard to even stay on subject when three separate devils are staring at me from the wall in front of my pc telling me I should grab THE LITTLE RED BOOK and begin calling for a.....see? I almost forgot about the Patriot Act!

But Alabama's 'experiment' is making employers mad!

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/14/8760288-immigrant-worke...

Thats an old link but who cares?

Then I ran across this from Arizona:

On the same day that President Obama announced a policy that will make it easier for young undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office arrested a 6-year-old girl suspected of coming to America illegally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/joe-arpaios-arrests-six-year-old_n_1603883.html

Now there are six spectors hissing at me from the walls and the ceiling.

I mean do you think Arpaio read the little girl her rights? And what language was used?

I do know that the President has managed to throw out more than a million folks without proper papers--something w bush never did. And how many innocents were there who simply misplaced their papers?

See, How in the hell can anyone stay on subject with regard to immigration?

Anyway, thanks for the post!

I agree with this 100%. I have an example of my own, quite similar to yours, but that person is from SE Asia.

I can't go into the story, but they deserve to be here as a full citizen and if I could do something to rectify the situation, I would.

Nothing like throwing the moral burden, on the rest of us citizens?

Of course humanity feels for these kids; more so than the parents that endangered their children's lives in the first place, when they stealthily crossed the inhospitable deserts, in deadly heat.

Charge the parents with reckless endangerment. 

Now the supporters of amnesty, want to shift the responsibility onto those who have opposed ILLEGAL immigration from the start;  knowing full well, this day would come. 

We were LIED to;  when Reagan gave the first Amnesty, and those with a conscience were promised enforcement,  when we compromised for humanitarian reasons back then.  

How did the moral issue of how to deal with this problem back in Reagan’s day, be so flagrantly ignored so now we have another humanitarian dilemma? 

Those in support of Open borders and their outright opposition to enforcement, saying in effect

“It’s not our problem; we made it your problem.  We don't want enforcement, we want open borders.  "You deal with the problems of Open borders, not us.  

Solution

I have suggested helping to build an American enclave in the region around Rocky point.  

An Americanized region, set up just for this very purpose, in response to the moral dilemma thrown upon those, who said all along,  SECURE THE BORDER; ….we don’t want another Amnesty solution which serves the Open Border agenda, we want the enforcement solution, we were promised .

Secure the border and we wouldn’t need amnesty.  Except;  the Open Border  crowd doesn’t want enforcement.  

If the government had done its job, we wouldn't have had to give amnesty.   

Amnesty will never end; it’s the fall back tool for  advocates for Open Borders.

Unrestrained and illegal immigration, is not the “Open Border” crowds problem, it’s your problem; the more heart wrenching the better.

I was thinking of an analogy yesterday.

Let's say my grandpa used to own a country club. But he lost it due to back taxes, sold it off for some reason.... But I'm still attached to that club, used to go there every day. So I crawl the wall one day, find someone who lets me work the club, washing dishes or waiting tables, not like an owner as before. But it's okay, so I get a few friends over the wall as well, and they work.

Eventually the club finds out, and decides I should be thrown out, no hard feelings, but there are members' kids looking for work, there are employment regulations. But this club was once mine! I exclaim. I'm productive! I'm not hurting anyone!

(If only my dad had snuck me into Stanford, that American "well, we can't punish the child for the parents' sins" attitude would have made me wealthy - I could have founded Facebook!)

Of course that "productive" has measures - some people are productive to a measure of $500K/year in terms of sales, design output, management skill, etc. Some people are productive to the tune of $20K. Most illegal immigrants are near the poverty line. Many work hard. But in the economic definition of the term, they are not very "productive". That of course partly depends on the shadow economy where they have to work. And part depends on their lack of training, skills, education.

And then there's the basic of the "get your kids to America" sprint. Of course many people want the best opportunity for their kids. Iran & Congo & Indonesia don't have an adjacent wall to climb. So millions of illegals make the gamble of getting their kids across the line, which we now embrace as a home-free strategy. 

I'd say this will encourage more waves, though one big change has happened. Mexicans now have fewer kids than Mexican-Americans. There is less poverty, less desperation, less need to come to the US. In some ways NAFTA is working by balancing standards of living, in some ways Mexico is entering the behavior of the successful industrialized/service-oriented world.

So we've got half the poorest of the poor here. "very brave" - like when I snuck into the Dead concert, right? just climb a fence, I'm in. Ok, they paid someone to get them across and lived underground. For a financial advantage. "get them market salaries" - oh right, among American blacks is up to 13.6%, and here we're proposing acting like headhunters for our illegal population?

I may sound cynical and wingnut, but I wish someone with liberal ideas would discuss this issue in terms where it didn't sound like we owed them anything. The key to the EU may not be in austerity towards Greece, but the Greeks were tax-evading, double book-keeping jerks on the way in. It may be the way to dealing with illegal immigration here is not deportation, but treating the 12 million illegals as heroes and victims of human rights abuse because we didn't welcome them with stock options gets weary.

OTOH, your offer to confer citizenship on folks gratuitously (as opposed to merely not deporting them) is grossly unfair to Asian, African, and immigrants from other noncontinguous places who didn't/couldn't cut in line. 

That kind of amnesty for the entire set of people who chose to come here, consciously knowing it's against American law, is to me indefensible, and would encourage more lawlessness.  I don't think your solution strikes a reasonable balance, even as I agree the kids should not be subject to the same analysis, and should have a path to citizenship.

Is the real problem the lack of jobs.? If employment were good, would we be as focused on illegal aliens? Carly Fiorina, the former head of IBM, said that there was no such thing as an "American job". We have come to realize that corporations exist to create profit, not to create jobs. In fact for a modern corporation job creation is the least profitable option.

Multinationals solve the need for workers as undesirable as the profit loss from  those jobs might be by hiring cheap labor overseas. Government considers employee layoffs and ending weekend postal delivery. A NOLA newspaper lays off workers and limits delivery.

Should the focus be on how we create jobs and not on illegal aliens? If jobs decrease, illegal aliens decrease.

Our biggest task is providing potential workers with good educations and creating jobs here in the US that pay a live able wage.

Right now our educational test scores suffer and our dropout rates are high. Is arguing that US citizens should be competing for low wage jobs with illegal aliens our biggest priority?

Is it job creation and education first and second (or second and first) or is it the foreigners?

people willing to walk two thousand miles, leaving all that is familiar behind, in the hope of a better life, are people you want in your country. Geography is destiny, fuck the line. This is only a problem in the first place because of that racist scumbag Calhoun.

This is a response to the thread dealing with clown statements. The Southern Baptists have many things that require answers. The church group separated from mainline Baptists over the issue of Slavery around 1845. The supported Jim Crow. They issued a statement of apology in 1995. While some small black congregations have joined, a larger group of black Baptists in the South belong to a different group, The National Black Baptists.

The Southern Baptists will elect a black President at their convention today. Richard Land has done enough today to embarrass himself on issues of race,. I mentioned his recent statement calling Sharpton and Jackson race pimps for being active in the Trayvon Martin case. We don't have to go back to Slavery to criticize the southern Baptists, we can stay in 2012, But, even Richard Land finds Biblical reasons to address the needs of the immigrants. In this, he differs from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who interprets the Bible as suggesting that those who work hard are rewarded with wealth. Poverty, in essence, is the plight of the lazy.

That even Land finds Biblical basis for immigration reform is amazing.

For all of the faults of the Catholic hierarchy, they have been vocal about immigration justice and very critical of the Ryan budget's impact on the poor.

I agree with tmac's  POV on this issue. we're cool. Just like you find compliments to hand out to people who agree with you. Human nature.

You might take a look at what some are saying about Catholics.

Southern Baptists have a heavy moral burden. The past burden is history. What Land is saying okay impacts the living. On the single issue of immigration, he seems to have a somewhat more modern view.

I won't be joining his congregation anytime soon. The new black Southern Baptist President has the same view as Louis Farrakhan on Gay marriage, for example. Both find the ritual counter to their religious belief.

And the Times gives us the story of American kids adjusting to life in Mexico, away from the homes they've always known.

More heartstrings, or something that demands a policy response, such as the president has provided?

Here's a question for Articleman or someone else with a legal background:

Obama has been criticized for not doing things earlier (like this order) that are within his power to do. I understand he has various "tools" or ways of enforcing the law that give him some amount of latitude.

However, others have said that this order amounts to Obama ordering the government to ignore the law and not enforce it which, presumably, is NOT his not his right to do under the Constitution, any more than it's his right to tell authorities not to prosecute anyone else who breaks any other law.

A-Man, I'd appreciate your clarifying the issues here.

Given that Obama has been facing an obstructionist Congress almost from the get-go, I understand he may need to bend the rules to get anything done. But surely, we can't abide him simply grabbing power.

Thanks all. I'll go a-looking. Appreciate your taking the time.