# Obama to Announce Executive Order RE: Immigration Reform Thursday Night



## tedtan (Nov 19, 2014)

Obama is scheduled to announce an executive order regarding immigration reform this Thursday evening. This is long overdue; I wonder how far he will go with this without Congress backing him up.


----------



## vilk (Nov 19, 2014)

I've always been curious as to whether or not there are any legitimately not racist reasons for anyone to try and say that somepeopleoranother shouldn't even be allowed the opportunity to live here, as though we are all somehow entitled just for having been born. 

Actually, I wonder how many "illegal immigrants" have had families living in the united states longer than people with roots going to ellis island...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 19, 2014)

vilk said:


> I've always been curious as to whether or not there are any legitimately not racist reasons for anyone to try and say that somepeopleoranother shouldn't even be allowed the opportunity to live here, as though we are all somehow entitled just for having been born.
> 
> Actually, I wonder how many "illegal immigrants" have had families living in the united states longer than people with roots going to ellis island...



I never thought it mattered either. To me it's a lot of fuss over something as arbitrary as being born at a certain point on the globe. That said... Since things are the way they are, it'll be interesting to see what he says. Everyone is always quick to call the white Republican candidate a racist for wanting to tighten up immigration. That's more than likely not always the case. I wonder what Obama will say and what the reaction will be. Hell... maybe his white half is racist... *knee slap*


----------



## monkeybike (Nov 19, 2014)

Well I am certainly not gonna pick tomatoes for a couple bucks a day......


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 20, 2014)

Now?
After we finally have a unified congress being sworn in in January who will get a bill to his desk to sign, the messiah is going to go it alone .

The day after the recent election he says he's going to sit down and work with the new congressional leadership on immigration policy, and then the next day it's back to his "I'll take care of this myself" again .

If the issue is really that pressing then what's he been waiting for these last 6yrs., when he knew congress couldn't get together?

The fact is he just doesn't want to compromise at all, and he also doesn't want to be put into the position of choosing to veto, so now he want's to take executive-order action quickly just to avoid being viewed as an obstructionist for roadblocking congressional process.

Well for a guy who used to be so big on transparency, he sure is transparent  .


----------



## Danukenator (Nov 20, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Now?
> After we finally have a unified congress being sworn in in January who will get a bill to his desk to sign, the messiah is going to go it alone .
> 
> The day after the recent election he says he's going to sit down and work with the new congressional leadership on immigration policy, and then the next day it's back to his "I'll take care of this myself" again .
> ...



Of course he is going to do it this way. The republicans aren't smart enough to think coherently about immigration.

The Republican arguement is basically: "but muh jobs...and they're brown."

Why bother get their input?


----------



## Grief (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm a foreigner here (a legal one though!), so can you clarify the issues for me?

This is what I think I know:

1. The illegals are mainly Mexicans that have somehow got over the border. 
2. There may be anything from 1-5million of them
3. As they are not legally here they don't pay taxes and are ripe for abuse as they can't easily go running to the police because they are here illegally. Businesses that employ illegal migrants are likely to be operating at the fringes of all sorts of other laws.
4. Illegal migrants don't have health insurance and hospitals must treat them anyway. The cost of this treatment goes onto the health insurance premiums of those that do have insurance.
5. Any taxpayers funded services accessed by illegal migrants are funded by taxpayers i.e the rest of us
6. If they are given citizenship or formally permitted to stay they will pay tax and therefore pay into the system in which they reside.
7. They can then get health insurance.
8. The govt here can focus efforts on ensuring better security of the border rather than spending money on removing people.

Is that something like correct?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 20, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> I wonder what Obama will say and what the reaction will be.



I suspect that he will only offer some type of immunity to those already present in country. I doubt he will try to implement any type of overall reform at this point, though we certainly need it.




TRENCHLORD said:


> The day after the recent election he says he's going to sit down and work with the new congressional leadership on immigration policy, and then the next day it's back to his "I'll take care of this myself" again .



The problem isn't Obama not working with the republicans, it's the republicans not being willing to work with Obama. Witness their shutting down Congress and all government services as an example of unwillingness to compromise.




Grief said:


> This is what I think I know:
> 
> ...
> 
> Is that something like correct?


 
More or less, though I suspect that there are more than 5 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone at any given point in time, so I think the numbers skew way higher than your estimate.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 20, 2014)

Grief: that's partly correct, but misses a few things. First, any undocumented immigrant who's buying things in this country is paying taxes: sales tax, gas tax, luxury tax, anything assessed at point-of-sale. Second, any undocumented immigrant who got a job using falsified papers (fake SSN, whatever) and is in someone's official payroll system is paying payroll taxes, because those are deducted automatically before the checks are cut to the employees. That's obviously not everyone, but it's a significant enough problem that several systems have been developed to try to detect this fraud more efficiently at point-of-hire; creating legal incentives for companies to use those systems has been one of the points of debate/argument in the larger conversation about immigration reform.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 20, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Now?
> After we finally have a unified congress being sworn in in January who will get a bill to his desk to sign, the messiah is going to go it alone .
> 
> The day after the recent election he says he's going to sit down and work with the new congressional leadership on immigration policy, and then the next day it's back to his "I'll take care of this myself" again .
> ...



Pardon? The Republicans in the house of representatives could have passed the immigration bill that's been sitting on the agenda for well over a year now (which the president has said multiple times that he would sign if it passed the house). Instead, the Republicans have been more focused on the imaginary debt crisis (might I remind you that they nearly let our government default), repealing the healthcare law (without citing any actual evidence as to why that's a good idea), and SUING the president. So, sorry if Obama got fed up with their shit and decided to take executive action. 

I would also like to remind you that HW Bush and Reagan also signed similar executive orders granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. The only difference is those presidents actually had a congress that wasn't hellbent on destroying the faith and credit of the Federal Government.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 20, 2014)

Just found this floating in my facebook newsfeed...




Elizabeth Warren said:


> I was proud to vote for bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate, but House Republicans have refused to even allow a vote on the bill for over a year. I support the Presidents decision to do what he can under the law to keep millions of families together, to help scores of businesses, and to patch up this broken system. Congress still needs to step up  but if Republicans in Congress wont do their jobs, its time for the President to do his.




Boom, headshot!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 20, 2014)




----------



## The Reverend (Nov 20, 2014)

This country wouldn't be able to run without the services of illegal immigrants. Anyone who's spent time in the unsavory industries in Texas knows this. I know of staunchly conservative business owners who have even helped valued, skilled aliens get back over the border after being deported. 

In any case, a bipartisan effort led by the Senate was essentially ignored by Republicans as a matter of course, so I support Obama in this. Having worked side-by-side with dozens of illegal immigrants, I fully understand and support their reasoning for coming over. I think those who oppose it should look at America's past, specifically the many, many times we had outright racist immigration policies, and try to see if the current reasoning for being tough on illegal immigrants is any different than it's been in the past.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2014)

Republicans are just afraid of Mexican-Americans actually being able to vote. With their current stances I'm sure the majority of them lean in the Democratic direction and that'd tip the scale here in Texas if everyone actually bothered voting.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 21, 2014)

Sounds good, although I just don't believe him about how secure the border is.
If the border was so secure then how have all those children been crossing so easily .

One problem he seems to have though is credibility. 
He often misrepresents his "big plans" like a crooked used car salesman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo


----------



## 7stg (Nov 21, 2014)

Grief said:


> Is that something like correct?



It is good that being recognized will make it much more likely that their employers will follow labor law, osha standards, and such. The ability to seek protection from law enforcement with out fear of deportation is also beneficial.

There could be substantially more granted amnesty than the reported 5 million Up to 34 MILLION blank 'green cards' and work permits to be ordered ahead of Obama illegal immigrant 'amnesty' | Daily Mail Online 

There is a net loss to the country from granting citizenship to unskilled laborers.




60% Of Households Get More Benefits Than They Pay In Taxes | Zero Hedge
older data
60 Percent of Households Now Receive More in Transfer Income Than they Pay in Taxes | Tax Foundation
2011 report
The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2011

These stories further show the negative economic impact of the current situation. Revealed: How immigrants in America are sending $120 BILLION to their struggling families back home | Daily Mail Online which is good for their families, but doesn't help the US economy. While at the same time Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. $100 Billion per Year, Conservative Group Says About Illegal Immigration - ABC News 

We are currently at 115.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time which will be increased by this action. I doubt that we will keep these commitments as that equates to $987,878.00 per tax payer.

The state of the job market is such that you have to go back 35 years to find a point as bad as it is today Employment to population ratio Civilian labor force participation rate. So, with a high level of job scarcity, increasing demand in the job market by millions of job seekers will suppress wages and increase unemployment.

Government - "your so stupid, I bet I can take everything you have and you'll thank me for it."


----------



## will_shred (Nov 21, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Sounds good, although I just don't believe him about how secure the border is.
> If the border was so secure then how have all those children been crossing so easily .
> 
> One problem he seems to have though is credibility.
> ...



Can you explain why the obsession with border security? I mean to a degree I understand it. However the US/Mexican boarder is already one of the most militarized borders in the world, how much further do you want to go? 

Also, we probably wouldn't have so many people desperate to come to America in the first place if the corporations/government never exploited their work force with free trade agreements (Why do you think MIM Fenders are so cheap?), and started the drug war which has been eaten away at the fabric of Mexican society. Many of the problems in Mexico (and well, most of south America) today have their roots in American exploitation, so when the people become displaced due to a lack of employment or violence I can't help but feel like we at least owe them a little human decency in return.


----------



## Danukenator (Nov 21, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Can you explain why the obsession with border security? I mean to a degree I understand it. However the US/Mexican boarder is already one of the most militarized borders in the world, how much further do you want to go?





You just don't get it. Let me lay it out for you:

2016. Liberals win the next presidential election. The boarder will be completely opened up for anyone and everyone to cross it. A terrorist group know as SISIL (Super Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) has managed to crossbreed bears and humans to create super warriors that our soldiers just can't face (due to military budget cuts). 

These Ebola ridden super soldiers will penetrate the heart of America, detonate their suicide bombs and send America (now now as El America because the MASSIVE influx of immigration has robbed all whites of their jobs, giving the Hispanic population a 22% share of the total population) back to the stone age!!!!


----------



## will_shred (Nov 21, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> You just don't get it. Let me lay it out for you:
> 
> 2016. Liberals win the next presidential election. The boarder will be completely opened up for anyone and everyone to cross it. A terrorist group know as SISIL (Super Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) has managed to crossbreed bears and humans to create super warriors that our soldiers just can't face (due to military budget cuts).
> 
> These Ebola ridden super soldiers will penetrate the heart of America, detonate their suicide bombs and send America (now now as El America because the MASSIVE influx of immigration has robbed all whites of their jobs, giving the Hispanic population a 22% share of the total population) back to the stone age!!!!



It all makes sense now!

_Circlejerk intensifies_


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 21, 2014)

Das scurry...


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2014)

Alright, so amnesty like I thought. It's a good thing for those people here over 5 years, but we need more than this, and sooner rather than later.




will_shred said:


> I would also like to remind you that HW Bush and Reagan also signed similar executive orders granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Yeah, I was going to point that out, but you beat me to it.





The Reverend said:


> This country wouldn't be able to run without the services of illegal immigrants...
> 
> I fully understand and support their reasoning for coming over.



Agreed.





flint757 said:


> Republicans are just afraid of Mexican-Americans actually being able to vote. With their current stances I'm sure the majority of them lean in the Democratic direction and that'd tip the scale here in Texas if everyone actually bothered voting.



That and the fact that many are Catholic instead of Protestant (the horror!). 





Danukenator said:


> giving the Hispanic population a 22% share of the total population



And I can see that you're definitely not in one of the border states.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 21, 2014)

11m illegal immigrants, Congress allots enough money to deport 400k a year. Something's gotta be done.

Further, this is nothing new; pretty much every president since Nixon has taken some executive action like this.

Really, the funny part is that the "leak" that Obama's immigration policy would involve suspending deportations was given solely to Fox News. That means that the administration was deliberately giving them enough rope to hang themselves come future elections. 

Sources: 

Trolling the GOP - Bill Scher - POLITICO Magazine
9 facts that explain why Obama is about to help millions of immigrants - Vox


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2014)

7stg said:


> These stories further show the negative economic impact of the current situation. Revealed: How immigrants in America are sending $120 BILLION to their struggling families back home | Daily Mail Online which is good for their families, but doesn't help the US economy. While at the same time Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. $100 Billion per Year, Conservative Group Says About Illegal Immigration - ABC News



Immigrants may send money back to their families in their homeland, but they still spend money here, too, doing their part for the economy. I mean, how much good is all the 1 percenters' money doing for the economy when its tied up in investments rather than being spent? And if we modernized the immigration mechanisms to allow more workers into the country legally so they can pay more taxes, and the government can spend less on INS, deportation and border security, you'll see those numbers flip 180 degrees.




7stg said:


> We are currently at 115.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time which will be increased by this action. I doubt that we will keep these commitments as that equates to $987,878.00 per tax payer.



What does the debt have to do with amnesty for immigrants? That's a stretch.




7stg said:


> The state of the job market is such that you have to go back 35 years to find a point as bad as it is today Employment to population ratio Civilian labor force participation rate. So, with a high level of job scarcity, increasing demand in the job market by millions of job seekers will suppress wages and increase unemployment.



How will this affect the job market when those job seekers are already here? We're not introducing new job seekers here, man, just making way for those already here to contribute to and benefit from society moreso than they already are.

I work in an engineering company, and more than half of my colleagues are immigrants to the US. We currently have people from ~30 different countries here in our offices. I can assure you we're not seeking them out because we have something against hiring Americans. We're hiring them (and at the mercy of the archaic H1B visa regulations) because there are not enough Americans studying traditional engineering fields (e.g., electrical engineering, chemical engineering, etc.) to fill the demand locally so we have to bring in people from elsewhere to fill it. Granted these are educated people in my case, but the point relating to filling demand for jobs still applies to unskilled and semi-skilled labor jobs, too.

And that is the crux of the issue regarding competition for jobs - most immigrants are doing jobs that Americans aren't doing/are unwilling to do. So if there is no demand for those types of jobs from the local job seekers, how does bringing people in from outside the country to fill them suppress wages or increase unemployment?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 21, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> This country wouldn't be able to run without the services of illegal immigrants. Anyone who's spent time in the unsavory industries in Texas knows this. I know of staunchly conservative business owners who have even helped valued, skilled aliens get back over the border after being deported.
> 
> In any case, a bipartisan effort led by the Senate was essentially ignored by Republicans as a matter of course, so I support Obama in this. Having worked side-by-side with dozens of illegal immigrants, I fully understand and support their reasoning for coming over. I think those who oppose it should look at America's past, specifically the many, many times we had outright racist immigration policies, and try to see if the current reasoning for being tough on illegal immigrants is any different than it's been in the past.


The 'best' arguement against the illegal immigration now vs founding of American I've heard so far is "but now we have laws that regulate immigration". Talk about moot


----------



## will_shred (Nov 21, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Immigrants may send money back to their families in their homeland, but they still spend money here, too, doing their part for the economy. I mean, how much good is all the 1 percenters' money doing for the economy when its tied up in investments rather than being spent? And if we modernized the immigration mechanisms to allow more workers into the country legally so they can pay more taxes, and the government can spend less on INS, deportation and border security, you'll see those numbers flip 180 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I would also like to add that 100 billion dollars is chump change compared to the total amount of US currency being used outside our boarders.

And yeah, Unfunded liabilities are an issue, there's no doubt about that. However trying to tie them to immigration is kind of silly. There are actually plenty of ways to pay for them. If you also look at that US debt clock, you'll see that our financial markets generate nearly 6 times more money than there is unfunded mandates. So it's not like the wealth just plain doesn't exist. Also, these mandates are things that we are expected to have to pay over a very long period of time. It's not like one day we're just going to be asked to cough up 114 trillion. A common conservative scare tactic is to sight very, very large numbers in macroeconomic statistics and say LOOK AT THAT ....ING THING. Without really understanding what those giant numbers actually mean in the context of the entire economy. Which I don't blame them for because this shit can be pretty mind numbing. But I love it 

Lets take a look at what these unfunded liabilities actually are. 

Social Security: First off, according to the US debt clock the total social security liability is about 15 trillion. Over how many years? It doesn't say. However according to most economists if we lifted the ceiling on social insurance taxes, the social security system would be liquid indefinitely. As it stands, the tax cap I believe is $114,000. So after that you will not be asked to pay taxes on your next hundred thousand, or million, or billion, five billion. Think about that. I'll let Robert Reich explain the other two, he is much more qualified than I am

Prescription Drugs:


> Finally, while other nations set wholesale drug prices, the law prohibits the U.S. government from using its considerable bargaining power under Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate lower drug prices. This was part of the deal Big Pharma extracted for its support of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.



http://robertreich.org/post/99279814665

And Medicare 

http://robertreich.org/post/4559031328



> So what&#8217;s the answer? For starters, allow anyone at any age to join Medicare. Medicare&#8217;s administrative costs are in the range of 3 percent. That&#8217;s well below the 5 to 10 percent costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It&#8217;s even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25 to 27 percent of premiums). And it&#8217;s way, way lower than the administrative costs of individual insurance (40 percent). It&#8217;s even far below the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.
> 
> In addition, allow Medicare &#8211; and its poor cousin Medicaid &#8211; to use their huge bargaining leverage to negotiate lower rates with hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. This would help move health care from a fee-for-the-most-costly-service system into one designed to get the highest-quality outcomes most cheaply.



Also Relevant: 

http://robertreich.org/post/2615647030


----------



## Grief (Nov 21, 2014)

tedtan said:


> And that is the crux of the issue regarding competition for jobs - most immigrants are doing jobs that Americans aren't doing/are unwilling to do. So if there is no demand for those types of jobs from the local job seekers, how does bringing people in from outside the country to fill them suppress wages or increase unemployment?



I was living in the UK until recently. There was a big influx in Polish immigration to our country a few years ago. In our city of 250,000 we had around 60,000 Poles arrive. I saw a lot of skilled tradesman among them, along with hairdressers, drivers, cleaners etc. Doing working class jobs and, those with limited skills and language, doing jobs that no-one else wanted. They paid more money in tax than they ever took out of the system and as a consequence of them being here local businesses thrived as they could take on more work and largely the Poles work hard to a high standard.

It's different in the USA of course because these Mexican guys are already here and the USA does not have the resources to remove them or keep them out. 

I guess US businesses that use illegal workers are able to undercut legally-operating competition? I can see that being a reason to oppose this reform.

What are the other reasons people oppose this immigration reform and what are the alternatives being proposed?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2014)

Grief said:


> I guess US businesses that use illegal workers are able to undercut legally-operating competition? I can see that being a reason to oppose this reform.



I don't see businesses using undocumented workers to undercut their competition so much. The people I see here in Texas who can't speak English (which I'm using as a rough barometer of the legality of their residence) tend to work as migratory farm laborers, in lawn and garden care, or as day laborers hanging around the hardware store or lumber yard looking for anyone to hire them for the day, sometimes as line cooks in restaurants. There are some skilled laborers, too (carpenters, roofers, mechanics, etc.), but most of what I see is these guys doing jobs that Americans won't do because they either don't pay enough or are too physically demanding for what they do pay (us Americans are getting lazy ).


----------



## JSanta (Nov 21, 2014)

I sit in a murky area in all of this because my parents immigrated legally from the former Yugoslavia. My father was schooled in a trade which was common in Communist countries at the time. His immigration was not easy, nor was my mother's, but they both went about it legally. 

However, the above poster seems to hit on something that studies have found to be accurate, that many times, illegal immigrants tend to take jobs American's simply don't want. Whether this is due to entitlement or something else, I don't know, but I believe that statistically there is truth to the idea they are not taking jobs away from legal citizens.

Clearly, something has to be done, but if I had the answer, I should probably run for office.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 22, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Can you explain why the obsession with border security? I mean to a degree I understand it. However the US/Mexican boarder is already one of the most militarized borders in the world, how much further do you want to go?




Can you explain why the disregard for border security?
If that border is so "militarized" then why are so many millions crossing it illegally?, even unaccompanied children seem to bust through all that "security".


Do you really think we can financially absorb an indefinitely rising number of people, and still treat them with the same dignity as the rest of us Americans?
Obama's own plan doesn't even grant welfare or medical benefits to millions of illegals, and why is that?
Because it's a fact we can't absorb the cost of doing so even now, let alone after we have several million more.

I'm all for a path to citizenship, and I'm against any mass deportation plan, but these things are only made financially possible if we cut off the current flow of new illegals. 

The whole 5yrs stipulation is going to be a free pass for basically all the 10-15 million current illegals because all it takes to establish it is a few fabricated rent/lease documents and/or medical records and such, really not a problem to falsify. I absolutely guarantee there's plenty of people getting to work on the "documentation" as we speak.

It wasn't a pressing enough issue to do this until we gained a unified republican congress that will pass an immigration bill that he doesn't favor.
This is nothing more than a play for future votes from the ultimate political schmoozer.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 22, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> The Republican arguement is basically: "but muh jobs...and they're brown."




 Same old racist accusations huh?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 22, 2014)

Living in Texas and working in a blue collar environment I can emphatically tell you that there is absolutely a hint of racism in why many people are so against immigration reform.......unless they need to hire one because they're too cheap to pay full price for a job.

My brother-in-law had to work for years along side illegals because he didn't have a valid state ID. The pay is awful, you work a minimum of 12 hour shifts in blistering Texas heat, no insurance, no raises, no job security, no upward mobility (definitely not enough time after work to get an education either), some weeks were 6 or 7 days long, no vacation, no sick days and if you took a sick day you'd get fired. In fact there were many times where people would literally be puking on the job site and the boss would tell them to get another job or get back to work.


----------



## 7stg (Nov 22, 2014)

7stg said:


> These stories further show the negative economic impact of the current situation. Revealed: How immigrants in America are sending $120 BILLION to their struggling families back home | Daily Mail Online which is good for their families, but doesn't help the US economy. While at the same time Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. $100 Billion per Year, Conservative Group Says About Illegal Immigration - ABC News
> 
> 
> tedtan said:
> ...


Working immigrants, of course, do make some contributions, but there are also costs associated which should be taken into account. 
The 1 percenters actions are a separate issue, but government policy is not in the best interest of America in that case either. 




7stg said:


> We are currently at 115.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time which will be increased by this action. I doubt that we will keep these commitments as that equates to $987,878.00 per tax payer.
> 
> 
> tedtan said:
> ...


Adding 5 - 10 million plus citizens will increase the recipients of government benefits. When they are unskilled workers they are not paying in enough to pull their own weight. It's fine to be charitable if we have the resources, but the programs are already maxed out beyond being sustainable and will fail. Increasing the liability will just add to the problem causing them to fail sooner. 




tedtan said:


> How will this affect the job market when those job seekers are already here? We're not introducing new job seekers here, man, just making way for those already here to contribute to and benefit from society moreso than they already are.
> 
> I work in an engineering company, and more than half of my colleagues are immigrants to the US. We currently have people from ~30 different countries here in our offices. I can assure you we're not seeking them out because we have something against hiring Americans. We're hiring them (and at the mercy of the archaic H1B visa regulations) because there are not enough Americans studying traditional engineering fields (e.g., electrical engineering, chemical engineering, etc.) to fill the demand locally so we have to bring in people from elsewhere to fill it. Granted these are educated people in my case, but the point relating to filling demand for jobs still applies to unskilled and semi-skilled labor jobs, too.
> 
> And that is the crux of the issue regarding competition for jobs - most immigrants are doing jobs that Americans aren't doing/are unwilling to do. So if there is no demand for those types of jobs from the local job seekers, how does bringing people in from outside the country to fill them suppress wages or increase unemployment?


There is another side to to h-1b visas, many companies push for h-1b visa programs because they do not want to pay Americans, and they bring foreigners over to learn the job then send them home to preform the job in their home country. How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers | Mother Jones


I am not against immigration and work permits per say, but would like a smart streamlined immigration system that benefits America and offers opportunities to qualified individuals and their families. I had a roommate from Nigeria that works for Microsoft that went through the process of becoming a citizen, It is a convoluted process that requires substantial legal fees to make it through the process. This New DHS immigration rules: Drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, gun offenders not top deportation priorities | WashingtonExaminer.com is not the kind of policies that are good for America.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 22, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Living in Texas and working in a blue collar environment I can emphatically tell you that there is absolutely a hint of racism in why many people are so against immigration reform.......unless they need to hire one because they're too cheap to pay full price for a job.
> 
> My brother-in-law had to work for years along side illegals because he didn't have a valid state ID. The pay is awful, you work a minimum of 12 hour shifts in blistering Texas heat, no insurance, no raises, no job security, no upward mobility (definitely not enough time after work to get an education either), some weeks were 6 or 7 days long, no vacation, no sick days and if you took a sick day you'd get fired. In fact there were many times where people would literally be puking on the job site and the boss would tell them to get another job or get back to work.



No doubt racism exist in Texas (or anywhere else), but implying that it's the party's sentiment as a whole is just inaccurate IMO. (you didn't, but I'm just say'n)


----------



## michblanch (Nov 23, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I don't see businesses using undocumented workers to undercut their competition so much. The people I see here in Texas who can't speak English (which I'm using as a rough barometer of the legality of their residence) tend to work as migratory farm laborers, in lawn and garden care, or as day laborers hanging around the hardware store or lumber yard looking for anyone to hire them for the day, sometimes as line cooks in restaurants. There are some skilled laborers, too (carpenters, roofers, mechanics, etc.), but most of what I see is these guys doing jobs that Americans won't do because they either don't pay enough or are too physically demanding for what they do pay (us Americans are getting lazy ).



Houston is like that. 

There are some gifted carpenters , masons and machinist that work hard and are trying to give their families better. If I lived in a country that had corrupt politicians, companies that took advantage of workers, shitty public schools then I woul.............. Never mind. 


I've read the immigration bill and there are some sections that make you wonder. 

The Govt has designated $100,000,000 dollars to help illegals fill out the forms correctly.

If a hospital notifies the govt of a shortage of nurses at their hospital. Then that hospital can hire nurses directly from Mexico to fill those positions. And help those nurses apply for citizenship. Thereby taking nursing jobs from people coming out of nursing schools in the U.S. 
I don't think the nurses unions in the US have caught onto that one yet. 


The Immigration bill states that Illegals will need to pay back taxes. 
Well, what dirt bag employer of illegals in their right mind is going to give the illegal a W2? That employer is handing over enough evidence to put owners in jail, face fines, or be shut down. 

An immigrant can have 3 DUIs before being deported. 

All a gang member has to do is renounce their membership and then they can stay in the country. That's right. Just open your mouth when you are picked up by the cops for being in MS13 or the Mexican Mafia then just Renounce the gang and instead of being deported, you can stay.


Oh yea forgot about this one. Immigrants must have a government issued ID. When being hired, the employer will connect to a Govt. database and verify the identity. 
You must have an ID to work but no ID to vote. Hmmm.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 23, 2014)

michblanch said:


> .
> If a hospital notifies the govt of a shortage of nurses at their hospital. Then that hospital can hire nurses directly from Mexico to fill those positions. And help those nurses apply for citizenship. Thereby taking nursing jobs from people coming out of nursing schools in the U.S.
> I don't think the nurses unions in the US have caught onto that one yet.
> 
> ...



A few comments on your selected points above:

-There's been a recognized nursing shortage in the US for years, as a simple Google search would quickly tell you.

-Quite a few illegals work under falsified credentials, which means that they're already been receiving W2s from their employers (and, by the way, paying into the payroll tax and Social Security coffers in the process). If there's no official amnesty for employers whose employees turn out to have been illegals working under false pretenses, you can bet there'll be a hell of a lot of discretionary underenforcement, at least so long as those employers are actively complying with the new ID requirements.

-Voting is a Constitutional right, which makes access to it a little different from applying for a job. Better point-of-hire ID systems solve an identified problem. Requirements for IDs at the voting booth solve a problem that no one has demonstrated to exist, and demonstrably suppress voting from supporters of the party opposing the politicians proposing the restrictions.


----------



## kmanick (Nov 23, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> r.
> This is nothing more than a play for future votes from the ultimate political schmoozer.


bingo someone here finally sees what this is really all about


----------



## flexkill (Nov 23, 2014)




----------



## Varcolac (Nov 23, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> This is nothing more than a play for future votes from the ultimate political schmoozer.



Any political move is this. Every politician no matter their allegiance calculates policy at least partly on a votes-won basis.

How is this even an argument against a policy?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 23, 2014)

Varcolac said:


> Any political move is this. Every politician no matter their allegiance calculates policy at least partly on a votes-won basis.
> 
> How is this even an argument against a policy?



That actually wasn't my argument against the policy, I was just pointing it out. 

I agree that about every political move these days is carefully calibrated to ensure maximum possible votes , unfortunately that's just all too true.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 23, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Can you explain why the disregard for border security?
> If that border is so "militarized" then why are so many millions crossing it illegally?, even unaccompanied children seem to bust through all that "security".



If you feel so threatened by unaccompanied children that you have to recreate the berlin wall all along the Mexican border and arm yourself to the teeth with assault weapons and attack dogs, the problem doesn't start with the unaccompanied children... 


Keep in mind, Obama is doing the executive order because Congress wouldn't take care of the problem years before by passing immigration reform on their own. Maybe instead of holding unrelenting Benghazi hearings and suing Obama at every chance available, Congress could just get to ....ing work already and do what the people elected them to do. The American people didn't elect those lame duck assholes to play game of thrones for their individual benefit.


----------



## michblanch (Nov 23, 2014)

celticelk said:


> A few comments on your selected points above:
> 
> -There's been a recognized nursing shortage in the US for years, as a simple Google search would quickly tell you.
> 
> ...




Point by point - We can both agree there is a nursing shortage in the US. However that shortage of nurses has done several things. It has increased the salary of all nurses by demand. 
It has giving the nurses unions better conditions and work environments because of the shortages. 
These shortages also help young people by giving them a field to enter with a living wage , walking in. 
Their tuition stimulates the economy and creates jobs in the U.S. for teachers and educators. 
And because that wage is higher it takes less time to pay off student debt. 
If you put more 110,000 more nurses in the system, do you think salaries will increase or decrease?
This bill allows 110,000 ANNUALLY. 

If the government did that to the automotive industry what do you think would be the response? 


Taxes: Great points and I can see your side. 

Voter IDs: you may think there is no voter fraud in the country, there are others that do. I view it as a safe guard to ensure that it doesn't happen. 
We have the right to firearms, however we are required to have IDs and background checks done before purchases are made. 
Why? Because one person with a firearm can have an impact if he has the wrong intentions. 
Would you be willing to be that one person who's vote didn't matter because a ballot that was illegal counteracted your ballot? 

We may not agree on much, but I do respect your point of view and I appreciate the sharing of opinions without any of the hyperbole that generally surrounds these topics.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 23, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> If you feel so threatened by unaccompanied children that you have to recreate the berlin wall all along the Mexican border and arm yourself to the teeth with assault weapons and attack dogs, the problem doesn't start with the unaccompanied children...



 Threatened?

It's a logistical problem. The children do grow up and breed you know. ?
We CAN NOT AFFORD to continue growing the number of people collecting medical and welfare. (at least not in Obama's economy) It's growing on it's own anyways without any additional strain.
If we could afford it then why didn't Obama grant all them all those benefits?
Unaccompanied children have absolutely no one to provide for them here, other than our government programs, and the border states are already struggling to handle the influx.

As I've already said, if you want to extend the "american dream" to millions of non-americans then there must be a line drawn somewhere.
In case you haven't heard, we are not making our ends meet as is in this country, not even close.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time









And to be clear, a rock-solid border is not anything like the Berlin Wall, which was there to keep people in.
It's much more akin to the Great Wall.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 24, 2014)

You forget, I LIVE in a border state. I'm all too aware of what strains there may and/or may not be. 

What Obama is doing is pretty smart actually. He's not giving them free entitlements. He's simply saying they can live and work here while they go through the naturalization process. The process can take years, so what are we supposed to do with the people that are already here? Deport them? To where? They can't go home. May as well let them stay here so long as they're trying to abide with immigration laws and work on becoming naturalized citizens. Hell, most immigrants I've met that have gotten their green cards know more about this country and its system of government than a lot of native born people I've encountered. They work their asses off doing jobs you and I mostly likely wouldn't be caught dead doing, so I highly doubt they're stealing anyone's jobs. Not unless your life's ambition is to pick orchards and do underpaid day labor work. 

If anything, seeing them teaches me the value of humility and gratitude. But with the new reform, they retain their jobs without fear of deportation, they keep paying their taxes like everybody else, their kids still get an education, and they're working on becoming US citizens. They're doing everything they can to abide by the law. 


Here's something that nobody talks about...
Mexico owns a sizable chunk of US debt, but the US has the gall to say that immigrants are leeching off of them. Honestly, if it were possible to get Mexico to forgive our debt to them in exchange for full and complete anmesty of anyone that crosses the border, we'd reduce our debt by over 30%, which would more than pay for every single debt incurred by the influx and still have plenty of money left over for other uses. Given how crappy our infrastructure is, we could use the extra labor to fix the crumbling roads, bridges, sewers, piping, phone lines, etc that plague and stifle our growth as a nation.

Or we could just keep being hypocrites by borrowing a ....ton of money from Mexico with no intention of paying it back, then call them leeches for daring to cross the border. That too.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 24, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Here's something that nobody talks about...
> Mexico owns a sizable chunk of US debt, but the US has the gall to say that immigrants are leeching off of them. Honestly, if it were possible to get Mexico to forgive our debt to them in exchange for full and complete anmesty of anyone that crosses the border, we'd reduce our debt by over 30%, which would more than pay for every single debt incurred by the influx and still have plenty of money left over for other uses. Given how crappy our infrastructure is, we could use the extra labor to fix the crumbling roads, bridges, sewers, piping, phone lines, etc that plague and stifle our growth as a nation.
> 
> Or we could just keep being hypocrites by borrowing a ....ton of money from Mexico with no intention of paying it back, then call them leeches for daring to cross the border. That too.


 
All foreign countries combined own 32% of America's total debt. Of the countries who own that debt, Mexico isn't even in the top seven (China, Japan, Brazil, Taiwan, UK, Switzerland, Russia). Of those top countries, China owns the highest amount at 26%. That's 26% _of 32%_ of American debt. If even clearing all of out debt with our single largest foreign debt holder would only clear 26% of 32% of our debt (8.3%? someone else can figure it out. I can't math ), I don't really see how absolving all debt with friggin' _Mexico_ would reduce our debt by over 30%.

I'm not taking a stance for or against anything else anyone has said about immigration, immigrants, or whatever else in this thread. I know it's a problem that the US sorely needs to take care of, but I really have no dog in this fight. I just found you numbers there a bit... odd.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2014)

7stg said:


> Adding 5 - 10 million plus citizens will increase the recipients of government benefits. When they are unskilled workers they are not paying in enough to pull their own weight. It's fine to be charitable if we have the resources, but the programs are already maxed out beyond being sustainable and will fail. Increasing the liability will just add to the problem causing them to fail sooner.



Assuming everything stays the same, yes. But additional demand for services should serve to offer some type of funding reform (in an ideal world - this is still the US government we're talking about ). But as the situation changes, you have to adapt and make the necessary changes to function under the new conditions. That applies to governments as well as individuals and businesses, so assuming that everything will stay the same is probably not making the best assumption.




7stg said:


> There is another side to to h-1b visas, many companies push for h-1b visa programs because they do not want to pay Americans, and they bring foreigners over to learn the job then send them home to preform the job in their home country. How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers | Mother Jones.



I only mentioned the H1B visa situation in passing, as it applies to my situation but not the topic of this thread.

The point of my post was that most immigrants coming into the US, legally or illegally, are filling voids in the local job market not being filled by local citizens/residents.




7stg said:


> I am not against immigration and work permits per say, but would like a smart streamlined immigration system that benefits America and offers opportunities to qualified individuals and their families.



I'm not arguing anything different. I just don't see the resources available as fixed finite because there are always ways of structuring things such that they support the goals at hand.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2014)

michblanch said:


> If I lived in a country that had corrupt politicians, companies that took advantage of workers, shitty public schools then I woul.............. Never mind.





If I lived in Mexico I would still immigrate to the US because the corrupt politicians, business owners and crappy schools are still better than those in much of Mexico. But yeah, we definitely have room for improvement here in the states, too.




michblanch said:


> If a hospital notifies the govt of a shortage of nurses at their hospital. Then that hospital can hire nurses directly from Mexico to fill those positions. And help those nurses apply for citizenship. Thereby taking nursing jobs from people coming out of nursing schools in the U.S.
> I don't think the nurses unions in the US have caught onto that one yet.



Nursing jobs have been in short supply for a while now and are a critical position, so I don't have issue with bringing in nurses from elsewhere as necessary. But do note that nurses have been in short supply for a while, so the immigrants coming to the US to fill those jobs are filling a vacancy that is not being filled by local citizens/residents, not taking jobs away from qualified jobseekers.




michblanch said:


> The Immigration bill states that Illegals will need to pay back taxes.
> Well, what dirt bag employer of illegals in their right mind is going to give the illegal a W2? That employer is handing over enough evidence to put owners in jail, face fines, or be shut down.



That's probably a formality, as everyone knows that a lot of undocumented immigrants are paid in cash and therefor won't ever get around to reporting their income in order to pay taxes on it.[/QUOTE]




michblanch said:


> Point by point - We can both agree there is a nursing shortage in the US. However that shortage of nurses has done several things. It has increased the salary of all nurses by demand.
> It has giving the nurses unions better conditions and work environments because of the shortages.
> These shortages also help young people by giving them a field to enter with a living wage , walking in.
> Their tuition stimulates the economy and creates jobs in the U.S. for teachers and educators.
> ...



Opportunities that are not being capitalized upon by those young people you mentioned enough to meet the demand for those jobs, unfortunately.

As for 110K nurses, I doubt we'll see that many coming into the US. H1B visas are capped at 65,000 annually and they cover a much broader range of occupations.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's a logistical problem. The children do grow up and breed you know. ?
> We CAN NOT AFFORD to continue growing the number of people collecting medical and welfare. (at least not in Obama's economy) It's growing on it's own anyways without any additional strain.



As I mentioned a couple of minutes ago in a reply to 7stg, situations change and we have to adapt to them as they won't adapt to us. And part of that is providing the funding to support additional demand for resources as best benefits the country. And tax reform is likely part of that (go back and see how this was done in the 1950's and 1960's; we may not need to be that extreme, but we need better than what we have today).




TRENCHLORD said:


> And to be clear, a rock-solid border is not anything like the Berlin Wall, which was there to keep people in.
> It's much more akin to the Great Wall.





We don't need a great wall of the USA to protect us from the regular Joe's coming over to the US. And even if you built one to protect us from the drug cartels and Mexican mafia, it wouldn't work because they are better trained, equipped and funded than many second and third world countries.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And to be clear, a rock-solid border is not anything like the Berlin Wall, which was there to keep people in.
> It's much more akin to the Great Wall.



Whether a wall is keeping people out or in is relative to where you're standing. It's still a wall. It still keeps people from moving across it.

Also, that wall built to protect China from rampaging hordes of Mongols that were kicking ass and taking names all over the continent? Yep, immigrants and refugees of drug violence are definitely that threatening.


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 25, 2014)

For much if not most of its 2,000-year history the Great Wall of China was intentionally porous. It marked a political boundary but was by no means a line drawn to keep people out. All it really meant was "south of this wall you pay Chinese taxes." So, if you want a Great Wall situation... just start taxing them. Thanks Obama.

Analogy fail.

Source: Varcolac: BA (Hons), MA, History of East Asia. 

Postscript: the two times the Wall was used defensively to "keep 'em out," it failed. The first one was keeping out the Mongols. Genghis Khan, aka the Taizu Emperor of the Yuan Dynasty, ended up on the throne of China. The second time was to keep out the Manchus. Nurhaci of the Aisin-Gioro Clan, aka the Tianming Emperor, founded the Qing Dynasty which ruled China from the mid-17th century to the Xinhai Revolution in 1911. Good job, Great Wall of China. Good freakin' job.


----------



## vilk (Nov 26, 2014)

The Great Wall is just the English name. It's actually The Long Castle. It's the 21st century why the hell are we building castles...


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 26, 2014)

^ I never knew that.


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 27, 2014)

"Castle" is a problematic translation as it includes a lot of Euro-American assumptions about medieval castles. The same character can also mean "wall," "city wall," "fortification" and "rampart."

"Long Wall/Long Fortification/Long Castle" is the modern Chinese term anyway. It was first called that by the historian Sima Qian, but dynasties after the Qin have avoided that name because nobody wants to be associated with the book-burning tyrant that Qin Shi Huang was. Today it's the Long Wall because it's redundant and the PRC like to glamourise Qin-period stuff. Unified China and all that.

Historically it's been called lots of things, depending on the political context. Wall, frontier, border, boundary, northern fortresses and more figurative stuff like "earth dragon" or "end of the world." I prefer to call it the "Long Wall," or the standard English Great Wall, since that's it's first name and that's what it is. A long (or "great" meaning "big") wall.

Either way, whatever you want to call it, Great Wall comparisons are flawed at best because history. 

Also Nurhaci was a total badass. Look him up.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 27, 2014)

One could also think of it as a rook instead of a castle. Rook takes Jose at San Diego5. Checkmate liberals!


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 28, 2014)

Jose's friend Pedro takes rook _en passant_. 45 years later Pedro's kid becomes President. Chekmaet consurvatibs.


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

Can we deport Cruz back to Canada?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 29, 2014)

Anyone that wants to come here, work, pay taxes like the rest of us and live their lives...good. I welcome them.

However, our borders are NOT secure. To believe otherwise is totally fantasy. Anyone and everyone can stroll on over no matter who they are. Criminal, terrorist? Who even knows who's here? We have enough gangbangers that are born here, we do not need to import more.

Immigration policy is a joke. We HAVE to know who is entering our country. There is no excuse why a nation as powerful as the US that can send our soldiers to the other side of the planet to combat terrorists infiltrating a foreign nation can't police it's own borders. Republicans and Democrats alike have failed for decades. Utter bullshit.

How ....ing hard is it to devise a system where people from wherever else looking to better their and their families lives can come here and be part of our society? The current system is pathetic. All both parties do is blame each other.

I understand both sides of this argument, but for ....s sake we need to know who is crossing over into our country. Only then can we decide who deserves to be here.


----------



## Forrest_H (Nov 30, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Anyone that wants to come here, work, pay taxes like the rest of us and live their lives...good. I welcome them.
> 
> However, our borders are NOT secure. To believe otherwise is totally fantasy. Anyone and everyone can stroll on over no matter who they are. Criminal, terrorist? Who even knows who's here? We have enough gangbangers that are born here, we do not need to import more.
> 
> ...



I'm leaning more towards this.

I don't normally like posting in threads like this, mostly because I feel like everything I say will rack me up a huge wall of red on my rep score , but I feel pretty much what FnF feels.

I have no hateful bias immigrants, and I don't think we should keep people out.

This isn't a good comparison at all, but I think it works... Working in the engineering field, I work with a lot of people from India, China, Japan... AND Mexico. The way that a lot of the white guys look at it is "OH NO MAH JOBS," which is true, engineering positions are being filled up in America by people other than Caucasians. However, the guys I work with that don't match my skin tone are extremely f-cking brilliant, and super nice. Some really great ideas in my company have actually come from people who immigrated, and relative to this thread specifically, Hispanic employees. So, while it is definitely bad that the jobs are going away, it is good in some sense, because those people taking the jobs are actually pretty fawkin good at it. Once again, might not be the best comparison, but I think it works...

If you want to make a decent living, pay your taxes, and be just like every other typical american citizen, I'm not going to tell you to f-ck off. But I do think you should be known, not just sort of here without any ID.

Hopefully I didn't piss anyone off too bad, not my goal, just throwing my thoughts out there


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Dec 11, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Just found this floating in my facebook newsfeed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not his job to legislate. That's Congress. His job is to enforce and, to a lesser degree, shape laws in his capacity of head of the state and executive branch. Two wrongs do not make a right.

For those who have trouble reading and have veins popping out of their heads right now, notice two salient points that I didn't make in my post: what my standing on immigration is (illegal or otherwise) and what I think of Obama and the past presidents that have taken similar courses of action. I just stated a fact... so if you want to reply to me and call me whatever flavor-of-the-week insult there is for purported right-wingers then please do so with valid premises for your argument. Not that anybody would do this, of course 

Carry on.


----------



## asher (Dec 11, 2014)

So when Congress refuses to do its job, he's supposed to sit and twiddle his thumbs?

Executive orders have a very long history of use.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 11, 2014)

Believe me, I've long been a proponent of limitations on executive orders. But I'm also seeing a Congress that likes to play game of thrones using their constituents as the damn pawns. They like to play "I'll pass my stuff and filibuster every other idea out there by reading goddamn cookbooks", and it's obstruction after obstruction after obstruction. Our government keeps being ground to a halt over friggin' kids games. In situations like this, hell yeah I want our president to put the pimp hand down and get our government functioning again. If they won't do their job, I want someone to come in and get it done. 

We've given our Congress ages to get a decent immigration reform bill passed and they all sat on their thumbs. We tried that way and got nothing to show for it. The definition of insanity is to keep doing things the same exact way, but expect different results each time. We keep relying on Congress to do their job hoping that "this time, they'll get their act together". They won't. If I had my way, I'd impeach every damn one of them, both sides of the aisle. As a voter and natural citizen, I demand that my elective bodies do their goddamn jobs, or gtfo of the way and let somebody in that actually wants to work.


----------



## asher (Dec 12, 2014)

That was aimed at Mo Jiggity.

It's hard to do anything when the opposition moves to scorched-earth tactics and tosses out the previous standards of decorum.


----------

