Supreme Court to Hear Case on Protecting Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Is like to start by saying that I'm truly disappointed that this is no longer my main source of information.

Now I'm glad that 26 states began stepping up to the plate to stop Obama from another liberal bleeding heart executive order.

The guy is seriously an ass, good news is everything he does makes Hillary looks bad and thank god!!

www.wsj.com...

The policy is called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. It would offer temporary protection from deportation and authorize work permits to about five million undocumented immigrants, most of them parents of U.S. citizens.

Man I really wonder about Scillias death sometimes.

If there was suddenly five million job opening do you think those jobs would have to raise wages enough to attract American workers to want to do the jobs left behind?

I mean honestly... Landscaping could be a good trade I it payed more than 10$ an hour. That's just one example. Would be great for young adults who need to lay their way through school or make some money on the side too.

Now lets see how legitimately legal the Highest Court in the land is. I am betting on Obama this time again....I feel this liberal bull**** of anything illegal is not against the law will continue.(Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaking on illegal Immigration and how illegal only means against the law to Republicans)
Peace

a reply to: onequestion

The story of your enslavement ...lol...as soon as you realize that there is a replacement eager to make less than you did, you can come to terms with your place in the scheme of things....

originally posted by: onequestion
young adults who need to lay their way through school or make some money on the side too.

Where do I sign up for this program?

________________________________________________

Seriously, it wasn't a bleeding heart that made this decision or signed that order. It was cold logic and planning.

a reply to: onequestion

You either have a rule of law or you don't. What kind of precedence is this setting?

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: onequestion

You either have a rule of law or you don't. What kind of precedence is this setting?

We have complete species retardation.

This plays into my zero sum hypothesis for total human intelligence.

Wow... seems like every day I feel like I am living in interesting times... what a curse...

Be interesting to see if the supreme court decides illegal doesn't mean illegal will that be one of the catalysts that lead to civil unrest.

Its funny how anyone opposed to illegal immigrants are typically painted as white racists... yet the biggest and loudest opponents I know to illegal immigration are Legal Immigrants.

a reply to: onequestion

I think you may be in for a big disappointment. Similar actions were taken during the Reagan and Bush presidencies and were perfectly within the authority of the administrations.

Also, we have to come to some sort of solution on this issue and deportation is not it.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: onequestion

You either have a rule of law or you don't. What kind of precedence is this setting?

Courts interpret the law. Courts set new precedents every day. It would not be the first time a court ruled in favor of something very similar to this.

a reply to: onequestion

young adults who need to lay their way through school or make some money on the side too.

No! No. Prostitution is not the way!

your beloved republican presidents also offered immunity, for the same reasons

spare us the outrage please

It's not about more workers it's about more voters!

a reply to: onequestion

Well then we need to also look into releasing all prisoners with children. That child needs their parent!

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!

is that what bush and reagan were doing ?

Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law. In a parallel to today, the Senate acted in 1989 to broaden legal status to families but the House never took up the bill. Through the INS, Bush advanced a new "family fairness" policy that put in place the Senate measure. Congress passed the policy into law by the end of the year as part of broader immigration legislation. "It's a striking parallel," said Mark Noferi of the pro-immigration American Immigration Council. "Bush Sr. went big at the time. He protected about 40 percent of the unauthorized population. Back then that was up to 1.5 million. Today that would be about 5 million." But a lawyer who worked on the 1986 law and the 1990 follow-up as an aide to then-Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., said Bush's action wasn't controversial because it came after lawmakers had made it clear they were going to tackle the issue. That's not the case now.

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!

I know I made a thread about it recently and everyone laughed at me.

Children.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!

I know I made a thread about it recently and everyone laughed at me.

Children.

That's because it's a ridiculous talking point regurgitated often without proper evidence of it actually occurring on a massive scale.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: onequestion

I think you may be in for a big disappointment. Similar actions were taken during the Reagan and Bush presidencies and were perfectly within the authority of the administrations.

Also, we have to come to some sort of solution on this issue and deportation is not it.

Solution? HA! The government doesn't deal in solutions. The government just plays the world's longest and most complicated game of "kick the can".

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!

I know I made a thread about it recently and everyone laughed at me.

Children.

That's because it's a ridiculous talking point regurgitated often without proper evidence of it actually occurring on a massive scale.

You didn't read anything in the op did you?

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!

I know I made a thread about it recently and everyone laughed at me.

Children.

That's because it's a ridiculous talking point regurgitated often without proper evidence of it actually occurring on a massive scale.

You didn't read anything in the op did you?

Have you read his response about how Obama has precedent for this because Bush and Reagan did it too?