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)