It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US to stop deporting and grant work permits to younger illegal immigrants

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Sorry for the long post - I wanted to make sure I included some detailed info on this directive.

I am not misdirecting anyone.. Unless a person is 18 years old (Federal Standard) the parents are the determining factor. Any person under 18 would and should go with their parents if they are deported. That child, if born in the US (citizenship) can decide at age 18 if he wishes to be a US citizen or a Mexican citizen (born in vs. parents citizenship).


Originally posted by Honor93
what i find odd about the whole thing is why it specifically excludes the youngest and most innocent, the infants and toddlers ??

This is another one of the "details" left out of the public statements made by the President and DHS. They listed of 5 criteria, and you listed some of them. However, if you actually read the memo put out to the agencies you will find there is a lot more than just the ones listed -

Press Release - What they said it covered
Agency memo that lists the discretionary part they left out

Pay close attention to thumbnail 4 and 5 - That is their comprehensive list of criteria and mitigating factors.




Regardless of the fact that a minor / infant were born in the US, it is the parents responsibility to provide for and take care of their children. That means the infant / child goes with his parents back to Mexico. They are respnsible for raising their child and at age 18 the child can then decide what nationality he would like to adopt - US or Mexican.

Again though, the parents are the ones who broke the law. They are the ones responsible for their childs situation, not the US government.



Originally posted by Honor93
just in case you think i'm "picking" like you often accuse me, here's the quote

www.nytimes.com...
Under the change, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer initiate the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years, and are in school, are high school graduates or are military veterans in good standing. The immigrants must also be under 30 and have clean criminal records.
not sure where you got age 18 or solely adults as some kind of limit but that is totally wrong.


18 is the legal age to be considered an adult under Federal Law (State laws vary however since the action is federal their standard is used). Any person under that age cannot make their own determination meaning they are linked to their parents and any actions against them for deportation. Granting a minors emancipation from their parents is an issue that is nowhere near immigration laws. Only the courts can grant a request to be emancipated.


Originally posted by Honor93
no, i am not in favor of this action but considering the purposeful exclusions, i'm really curious about the true intent behind it.


In my opinion its nothing more than political and has nothing to do with trying to resolve the issue or enforce the law. To make this announcement, 1 week prior to Obamas trip to Florida to address the Latino conference smacks of pandering in order to secure the Hispanic vote in the elections. People are ignoring the fact the States with the largest Hispanic populations - Texas, California and Florida - also have large electoral votes and are key states to win in order to get elected.

The other thing people are ignoring is this announcement once again changed the topic away from the AG's issues with Congress and his looming contempt charge, the Commerce Secratary who was cited for felony leacing the scene of an accident, going after Florida for their effort to update their voter rolls and Arizona and their immigration law, with a result of that US Supreme Court decision due in a week or 2. Also it shifted focus away from the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on his health care bill. His gaffe on stating the economy is doing just fine, Former President Bill Clinton's remarks about Obama, the GAO scandal, the loss of the recall vote in Wisconsin, the secret service scandal, the hospital - church - abortion diasco..... etc etc etc

Everything Obama has done has ended up costing him support with no real bump by people who like the law. The immigration amnesty and the governments attempts to stop florida and arizonas actions will result in an uptic in support and more than likely more votes on election day *from legal and illegal individuals).

Last but not least the action is unconstitutional since an executive order cannot change a law. If you notice they are constantly stating this is not amnesty, its not this, nor that. They are using those words in an effort to portray this action as something legal. Its why they are listing it as a policy change for DHS / FLEA's.

What I find interesting is they fight the laws that requires a person to present ID to vote, saying its a civil rights violation while at the same time require people to show identification in order to get into federal venues.

The ironies abound....

Immigration is fine,so long as they do it legally.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Everything Obama has done has ended up costing him support with no real bump by people who like the law.




Gotta love retarded posts.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel

Everything Obama has done has ended up costing him support with no real bump by people who like the law.




Gotta love retarded posts.

Indeed so you should probably stop making them as it drags the thread off topic.

what part of my post confuses you? Was it the part where I stated in my opinion or was it something else? I can take the time to explain it to you if you need help understanding it since you failed to address what your particular problem is with my post as well as failing to contribute anything useful / relevant to the discussion.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Sorry, can't be bothered. It's the same circle jerk over and over again.

Yes you have it out for Obama. Yes I know why. No you won't admit why. You do know what he studied right?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

hey thanks for posting the paperwork as i haven't been able to read pdf docs for awhile now and was really wondering what was in there besides what the news says, so thanks again.

i agree that immigration is great, so long as it's done legally, however, until reviewing your posted material, i still find the exclusions telling to say the least.
political pandering ?? absolutely
redirection of public perceptions ?? most certainly
effective ?? seriously doubtful


ps: i never said anything about children born here, that is a different discussion.
This is about those who arrived here and lived here for 5 years ... there ARE plenty of them, none of whom are citizens or deserving of such applied naturalization.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Thats my point and the reason behind my position - the devil is in the details. This is not a meaningful effort to resolve any immigration issues but a stop gap measure to temporarily gain support for reelection and nothing more.

When the Democrats controlled both houses they could have easily passed comprehensive immigration reform or at the least dealt with this issue in a more meaningful and indepth manner.

This action is nothing but a vote getter and nothing else. When the DHS head states they dont have the resources, only to announce a policy change that moves things to a case by case basis and to further state they have to bring in more people to help handle the flood of paperwork they are going to get.... what does that tell us?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Sorry, can't be bothered. It's the same circle jerk over and over again.

Yes you have it out for Obama. Yes I know why. No you won't admit why. You do know what he studied right?


The only circle jerk present are your posts... Childish attacks while adding nothing to the thread. Typical action when you cant refute the facts. Attack the poster.. or blame Bush take your pick.

So tell me - Why do i have it in for Obama?

He supposedly studied Constitutional Law however by his actions I doubt he paid attention.

I cant stand Obama's policies or the direction he wants to take the country. I dont beleive in wealth redistribution, I dont agree with cranking up taxes in order to fund domestic welfare programs that have become a permanent way of life for people instead of it being temporary to assist while trying to find work.

As a Constitutional scholar Obama should know he cannot bypass Congress using Executive Orders. He cannot change laws by using executive orders. His administration is out of control when it comes to leaking national security information and he is more concerned with apologizing for the US and blaming Bush than he is in actually fixing things. Hell he is now starting to blame Congress for all of his problems.

We are coming up on the elections and Obama is still blaming bush and congress for everything. Guess what - He was voted into office to fix things, not blame others.

We have identified the problems... Next step is to fix them.... The last part is where Obama is lost and confused.

This interview sums up my feelings on Obamas actions -



Now, how about you tell us what your position is on Obama and this latest end run around Congress? Since you seem hell bent on derailing the thread, how about for a change you participate and tell us your opinion on the topic instead of useless attacks on everyone else? Is that a possibility or is it somehow everyone elses fault that you attack them and derail the thread?
edit on 17-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


When the DHS head states they dont have the resources, only to announce a policy change that moves things to a case by case basis and to further state they have to bring in more people to help handle the flood of paperwork they are going to get.... what does that tell us?
pretty much everything someone with a strategy needs to know



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Goradd
 

When young people are barely making enough money to get by you expect them to magically pull enough money to relocate out of thin air and move to some place where they have no support in place just on the chance that they might be able to get better employment? In case you haven't noticed there are people who can't get a job at all nowdays and would probably be thrilled if they could find even a part time job even if it meant working for well beneath their job skill set and previous pay scale!

With so many people unemployed businesses that actually are hiring can afford to pick and choose. Young adults who are trying to get their foot in the door don't have the same opportunities that they had 10, even 5 years ago. And with so many businesses downsizing their staffs to increase their profit margins the first ones to go are the young and the old. My kids are both victims of downsizing, my nephew not able to get a foot in the door. My neighbor a victim of age discrimination- not so easy to get someone to give you a chance to start over in your later years!

It's easy to say "move to where there's work" if you're employed or have lots of money saved up to be in a position to move somewhere else to seek employment. First and last months rent, utility deposits, and enough money to support yourself until you have a steady reliable income- not to mention the expense of the actual physical move- add up to quite a bit of money! If you are unemployed or underemployed it is fiscally impossible. Not to mention trying to find affordable and adequate child care (which also comes with deposits, registration fees, and leaving your child with strangers- one of my kids is a single parent).

So many people with no understanding say "just move to where the work is". My guess would be that they haven't really thought of the logistics of it because in most cases it just isn't fiscally possible. You can't move if you are broke.

I am glad not to be in the position that a lot of folks are finding themselves in now. But I have understanding and compassion for them. In our younger years my husband and I were in a similar situation where we both had to take less than 40 hour per week minimum wage jobs just to feed our kids and put a roof over their heads. There wasn't any money for moving to someplace else- it took every cent to survive. We toughed it out until better times came along. My fear for those facing the same situation now is that they can't be sure that better times are coming.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join