Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act,...

Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals

There are 3410 comments on the The Daily Caller story from Jun 15, 2012, titled Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals. In it, The Daily Caller reports that:

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Caller.

bob

Gilbert, AZ

#2976 Jul 7, 2012
REWBA wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you consider waivers for those who for no reason of their own, they are incapable of self care or physically unqualified due to a birth defect or cancer or something like that?
the home country has hospitals. How about the ones that are here legally waiting in line for those services. And a non- paying illegal gets in before them. Maybe before you. a legal paying your taxes and working for years so you can die because some illegal stole your services!!!!!!!! Why do we need their drain on our country??? We have enough already !!!!! Americans first!!!!!

REWBA

“RelaxEverythingW illBeAllright”

Since: Mar 11

Wichita, KS

#2977 Jul 7, 2012
bob wrote:
<quoted text>the home country has hospitals. How about the ones that are here legally waiting in line for those services. And a non- paying illegal gets in before them. Maybe before you. a legal paying your taxes and working for years so you can die because some illegal stole your services!!!!!!!! Why do we need their drain on our country??? We have enough already !!!!! Americans first!!!!!
Many of those undocumented children have parents who were granted amnesty under Regan/Bush and Bush/Quail. The children's papers weren't taken care of because they only could scrape up enough money to pay to get amnesty for themselves and by the time they scraped up enough for the kids, the program was over...too late.

So you want to take an autistic man incapable of self care away from his family and send him to a country that he has never been to and has no ties to whatsoever?

If so, You are a real piece of chit
bob

Gilbert, AZ

#2978 Jul 7, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, it can't cost us any more than they already cost us. Illegal jobs, tax fraud, social security fraud, plus the cost of increased crime can't cost less than putting them in the military.
Plus, you keep manipulating "facts" to suit your argument. How many of those 13 - 20 million are actually of an age to fit into the military? Plus, the group that was being discussed was the estimated 800,000 that arrived here under the age of 16 and is currently 35 or younger.
Deport the rest of them like our law calls for.
It will cost us more to put them in the military . Our military is very well trained , fed , clothed, and medically sound. We want them to be . Just how big do we need our military to be??? a military needs wars to fight and constant training and up keep . We dont even know where the military that is returning is going to find jobs . Do we really want to train children and illegals that have no sworn allegence to this country how to kill us ??? with their bare hands. Why dont we just bring in millions of illegal people from iran , Iraq , etc and show them how to fire our missiles, where are hidden bases are . Give them our good wepons to start killing people.
frank

Oakland, CA

#2979 Jul 7, 2012
freebird wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't know the history of Walmart.
Huh?
bob

Gilbert, AZ

#2980 Jul 7, 2012
REWBA wrote:
<quoted text>
Illegal aliens are nothing new. They have been coming to the United States of America every since before we were the United States of America. Over the centuries, our law makers have created immigration laws and amended those laws as times changed and reforms were called for.
Everyone knows our immigration laws need reformed again. It's just that the party of NO have found a strong following of ignorant hateful racists so they refuse to do the right thing and reform immigration laws to match the times we live in.
Quit complaining about the problem and join those of us who understand the need for reform and add your ideas and experiences to the solution. Or keep on doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results. Your choice.
Several times the United States has deported illegals in mass .it is over time to do it again . We do not need immigration reform we need to enforce our immgration laws on the books.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2981 Jul 7, 2012
freebird wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't know the history of Walmart.
WalMart’s history is the story of what's gone wrong in the American economy. Wages have stagnated, the middle class has shrunk, the ranks of the working poor have swelled. Whatever we may have saved shopping at WalMart, we’ve more than paid for it in diminished opportunities and declining income.
bob

Gilbert, AZ

#2982 Jul 7, 2012
REWBA wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of those undocumented children have parents who were granted amnesty under Regan/Bush and Bush/Quail. The children's papers weren't taken care of because they only could scrape up enough money to pay to get amnesty for themselves and by the time they scraped up enough for the kids, the program was over...too late.
So you want to take an autistic man incapable of self care away from his family and send him to a country that he has never been to and has no ties to whatsoever?
If so, You are a real piece of chit
They need to be identified as what they are children of the first Amnesty (that was a mistake) Now you see why ( they said we would never have another amnesty and the border was secure ).Fool me once . dont fool we twice. They have had years to get this paperwork in order. Like they have made no money since then? And they are not getting Government assitance for them ? What are they stupid ??? If their kids were not consetered and getting help that they think America should be giving them. And they could not make it out of pocket they should have looked at another country long ago. they got here didnt they ??? Why would/ why should America take in people that can not earn their own keep??? If the child was not born here they were both illegal and both should have been kicked out of the country then. Just like now .If you are born to illegals you are illegal . Doctors not our Government screwed this up. Unless your parents are Us citizens your birth certificate should read the country of of illegal parents. And be a different form. Just showing your on the planet.
JEB

Studio City, CA

#2983 Jul 7, 2012
Aprilvue wrote:
<quoted text>
A very good argument for requiring birth certificates upon school enrollment and mandatory tracking of numbers of students lacking legal documents.
Personally, I think the numbers would be staggering, as well as the cost being passed on to citizens.
President Obama placed the issue of illegal immigration center stage in the 2012 presidential campaign Friday with his extraordinary decision to use executive authority to offer legal status to some illegal immigrants.

Obama's decision shifted political attention away from the nation's struggling economy - at least for the time being. He called his shift in immigration policy a sensible, humane approach for children who were illegally brought to this country through no fault of their own, and urged Congress to do more.
"It is the right thing to do," he said. "We are a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids."
Using the power of the bully pulpit and the megaphone of live national television, Obama overshadowed Republican rival Mitt Romney's kickoff of a six-state bus tour designed to focus attention on the nation's economic woes. Responding cautiously, Romney said Obama's executive decision will complicate efforts to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.

"We have to find a long-term solution, but the president's action makes reaching a long-term solution more difficult," Romney told reporters during a campaign swing in New Hampshire.
Romney's mild response reflects the political tightrope he is walking on the issue of immigration. During the Republican primary contest, he positioned himself as the most conservative candidate in the field on illegal immigration, slamming Texas Gov. Rick Perry for allowing in-state college tuition for illegal immigrant students and recommending "self-deportation" for millions of people living illegally in the United States.
But Romney has begun to pivot back toward the center, and has spoken favorably about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's plan to grant legal residency to some young people who were illegally brought into the United States by their parents.

Republican Senator Rubio, whose home state is a key 2012 presidential battleground, called Obama's announcement

"welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer......"
bob

Gilbert, AZ

#2984 Jul 7, 2012
REWBA wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is compelled by law to attend school. Perhaps Hispanics have a higher drop out rate because whats the point? If they were brought here as a baby and don't have a US birth certificate or immigration papers then a high school diploma is worthless to them. Well, until now that Obama is providing a pathway to citizenship.
Keep on complaining about problems that you refuse to do anything about.
Talibaggers are all the same. Dumb as rocks and stuck in their own little imaginary world where they actually believe anyone really cares what they think.
If they see a kid during school time and he is not in school they will find out why . That would be a tip to see if the parents are illegals and then deport them all . If they are illegal they should not be in our schools. They waste time and money putting illegals though our schools. Knowing that we do not want them to take jobs because they are not US. citizens. do not allow them in our schools for 12 years or less because we do not want illegals taking jobs from Americans Laws work if you enforce them !!!!!!!!! Most people understand punishment and will not do the crime for fear of it . WHERE IS THE PUNISHMENT!!!!!!!!!!

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2985 Jul 7, 2012
freebird wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't know the history of Walmart.
Here's what I know and have witnessed. A thriving local business economy is filled with small businesses that provide a good living to the families who run them and their employees who usually work at a business for many years. Every business in small town America contributes to the local tax coffers. Beyond that, their earnings are usually plowed back into that community through the purchase of homes, involvement with the local banks in savings and deposits, and community involvement.

Enter Walmart which negotiates preferential tax treatment with the city with its' promises of employment. They hire low wage labor already present and willing to work at minimum wage because, one by one, the local business owners are driven out of business by the undercutting of comparable goods by Walmart. In fact, Walmart will sell competing items at a loss long enough to make it impossible for the local business to stay open.

Those former business owners can no longer afford the mortgage on the nicer homes they own. Now, they are compelled to sell at a loss and move to hopefully greener pastures. Their money no longer circulates in the local economy and business tax revenue declines. Real estate prices decline along with the exodus of former business owners. The local consumer is now afforded one option: Walmart.

At that point, the artificially low prices at Walmart begin to climb again and exceed the costs those closed businesses once charged. Consumers are now gouged and held hostage. Lower business tax revenue means fewer services. Dirtier streets and litter filled roadways make the town even more unattractive to would be arrivals. Deteriorating roads add to the perception. You're left with thousands of minimum wage workers, the American guy from Iran who wisely bought up ALL the service stations in town that he could (LOL), the bank owners whose lawns could use more maintenance, and the commuters to other cities who are considering moving closer to their jobs as the quality of life declines around them. Nobody else shows up to launch a business aside from notorious polluters who see a potential opening based on the desperation emanating from City Hall while watching property tax remittances in steady decline as well. And, of course, you're left with Walmart, which will pump NO money back into the local economy since profits channel upstream to the parent.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#2986 Jul 7, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Here's what I know and have witnessed. A thriving local business economy is filled with small businesses that provide a good living to the families who run them and their employees who usually work at a business for many years. Every business in small town America contributes to the local tax coffers. Beyond that, their earnings are usually plowed back into that community through the purchase of homes, involvement with the local banks in savings and deposits, and community involvement.
Enter Walmart which negotiates preferential tax treatment with the city with its' promises of employment. They hire low wage labor already present and willing to work at minimum wage because, one by one, the local business owners are driven out of business by the undercutting of comparable goods by Walmart. In fact, Walmart will sell competing items at a loss long enough to make it impossible for the local business to stay open.
Those former business owners can no longer afford the mortgage on the nicer homes they own. Now, they are compelled to sell at a loss and move to hopefully greener pastures. Their money no longer circulates in the local economy and business tax revenue declines. Real estate prices decline along with the exodus of former business owners. The local consumer is now afforded one option: Walmart.
At that point, the artificially low prices at Walmart begin to climb again and exceed the costs those closed businesses once charged. Consumers are now gouged and held hostage. Lower business tax revenue means fewer services. Dirtier streets and litter filled roadways make the town even more unattractive to would be arrivals. Deteriorating roads add to the perception. You're left with thousands of minimum wage workers, the American guy from Iran who wisely bought up ALL the service stations in town that he could (LOL), the bank owners whose lawns could use more maintenance, and the commuters to other cities who are considering moving closer to their jobs as the quality of life declines around them. Nobody else shows up to launch a business aside from notorious polluters who see a potential opening based on the desperation emanating from City Hall while watching property tax remittances in steady decline as well. And, of course, you're left with Walmart, which will pump NO money back into the local economy since profits channel upstream to the parent.
Where I grew up, all the stores paid minimum wage. Walmart came to town and they only sold items made in the U.S. Other stores (chain stores before Walmart) started selling items made in Japan at the time, which were junk. At the time the U.S. didn't trade with China. I'm not saying Walmart isn't corrupt now, just saying they weren't the ones that started this whole mess.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2987 Jul 7, 2012
bob wrote:
<quoted text>It will cost us more to put them in the military . Our military is very well trained , fed , clothed, and medically sound. We want them to be . Just how big do we need our military to be??? a military needs wars to fight and constant training and up keep . We dont even know where the military that is returning is going to find jobs . Do we really want to train children and illegals that have no sworn allegence to this country how to kill us ??? with their bare hands. Why dont we just bring in millions of illegal people from iran , Iraq , etc and show them how to fire our missiles, where are hidden bases are . Give them our good wepons to start killing people.
I see your point.
Why can't we simply enforce the immigration laws?
Send them packing. Political correctness is bringing this country to its knees.

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2988 Jul 7, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your point.
Why can't we simply enforce the immigration laws?
Send them packing. Political correctness is bringing this country to its knees.
We don't enforce the laws as an accommodation to business interests. The Chamber of Commerce Lobby is a huge voice on Capitol Hill in support of amnesty. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about money and profit. We could enforce our laws, and we could make mandatory E-Verify as the law of the land. But, we don't. 1986 was the beginning, and nothing has changed signficantly in all those years. The promise to the American people of "one time only" was never kept from inception of that Amnesty.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#2989 Jul 7, 2012
http://www.startribune.com/politics/161684745...

OBAMA AD CHALLENGES ROMNEY ON CHINA
President Obama is challenging Mitt Romney's promises to crack down on China's trading practices, saying in an ad released Saturday that the Republican candidate "made a fortune" by allowing China to strip away U.S. jobs.
Obama's ad turns again to a recent Washington Post report that several businesses backed by Romney's former private equity firm moved U.S. jobs to China and India to cut costs. In a parting shot, a narrator says Romney is "not the solution. He's the problem."
The ad follows Obama's two-day bus tour in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the president announced plans to file a trade complaint against China at the World Trade Organization for unfairly imposing duties on the exports of U.S.-produced automobiles. Romney has accused Obama of failing to live up to promises to get tough on China. Obama's administration says it has taken a broad effort to crack down on what it calls unfair Chinese trading practices, filing seven trade cases with the WTO against Beijing.
The ad represents the latest attempt by Obama's team to discredit Romney's argument that his private sector experience makes him more qualified than the president to steer the economy during high unemployment. Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said it was "no surprise President Obama would want to distract Americans from the devastating June jobs numbers, but the American people deserve better than dishonest ads."

So we have to file a complaint to the WTO. LOL!!!
bob

Gilbert, AZ

#2990 Jul 7, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>We don't enforce the laws as an accommodation to business interests. The Chamber of Commerce Lobby is a huge voice on Capitol Hill in support of amnesty. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about money and profit. We could enforce our laws, and we could make mandatory E-Verify as the law of the land. But, we don't. 1986 was the beginning, and nothing has changed signficantly in all those years. The promise to the American people of "one time only" was never kept from inception of that Amnesty.
I dont understand why they have to listen to big business . The people vote them into office by thinking they are going to do what they say. Do these companies pay the officals under the table? Are they that criminal? We all know Abama panders to illegal for votes .In 1986 I think they were trying something different .I think all the country knew ," You give to a few and the rest think you owe them". This is an invasion . They figure America cant kick them all out . Since we did not secure our border better . They have kids on purpose thinking we wont kick them out. We cannot continue this way. We must show them they cannot steal the border and profit.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#2991 Jul 7, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Why - because you didn't get it?
No, because you expected me to bite and I didn't do so in the way you assumed I would....

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2992 Jul 7, 2012
bob wrote:
<quoted text>I dont understand why they have to listen to big business . The people vote them into office by thinking they are going to do what they say. Do these companies pay the officals under the table? Are they that criminal? We all know Abama panders to illegal for votes .In 1986 I think they were trying something different .I think all the country knew ," You give to a few and the rest think you owe them". This is an invasion . They figure America cant kick them all out . Since we did not secure our border better . They have kids on purpose thinking we wont kick them out. We cannot continue this way. We must show them they cannot steal the border and profit.
Who do you think we have to show? It starts with transforming Congress. It means crossing party lines and ignoring splashy media advertising and reading exactly what a candidate says, looking closely at his/her voting record, and not being reluctant to get behind, promote and support third party candidates who have ethics and integrity. It also means hearing a candidate say something specific you just don't care for but respecting that individual is not afraid to deliver tough news or stand for what he/she knows is true. I cannot stand those who won't answer tough questions, who dodge and deflect.

I want to believe that Americans won't let big money buy our elections or sway our votes. We'll see.
Nobody Gives a Chit

Phoenix, AZ

#2993 Jul 7, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Who do you think we have to show? It starts with transforming Congress. It means crossing party lines and ignoring splashy media advertising and reading exactly what a candidate says, looking closely at his/her voting record, and not being reluctant to get behind, promote and support third party candidates who have ethics and integrity. It also means hearing a candidate say something specific you just don't care for but respecting that individual is not afraid to deliver tough news or stand for what he/she knows is true. I cannot stand those who won't answer tough questions, who dodge and deflect.
I want to believe that Americans won't let big money buy our elections or sway our votes. We'll see.
You my dear woman are a moron. No body cares what you think or say. You're just another stupid koolade drinking obama ho that needs a good beat down. LMFAO@UB

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#2994 Jul 7, 2012
Nobody Gives a Chit wrote:
<quoted text>
You my dear woman are a moron. No body cares what you think or say. You're just another stupid koolade drinking obama ho that needs a good beat down. LMFAO@UB
The only reason you posted this is because YOU KNOW there are many people that care what she has to say, and you're afraid they'll be more.
Nobody cares

Lombard, IL

#2995 Jul 7, 2012
X -Man- wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason you posted this is because YOU KNOW there are many people that care what she has to say, and you're afraid they'll be more.
You are so full of shyt. LMFAO

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Criminal Defense Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Jeff Sessions adds 300 prosecutors to fight opi... 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 15
News WFAA: Two Benbrook officers resign amid crimina... (Sep '13) 3 hr Stand for something 10
News Police encourage NY man to break into ex-girlfr... 8 hr DumpTrump 1
News Tekonsha school officials under investigation 8 hr MLIVEGANG 1
News Senior prank at Deer Creek High School turns in... 13 hr twocents 1
News Cop's advice on home break-in turns ugly 14 hr Truth hurts liber... 7
News Oklahoma Woman Reports Husband After Finding Ch... 21 hr Epeshians 1