Cheer the President, Boo His Motives

[HS News]

The decision made by the Obama administration this week to focus its deportation efforts on serious threats to national security should be applauded by Latinos and progressives alike. It seems that President Obama has finally expressed his support for the Latino base that helped elect him in 2008.

Yet, while the administration’s policy shift will provide relief for tens of thousands of undocumented citizens unjustly living in fear of deportation, I find it unfortunate that the decision was made for political reason rather than on its moral merit.
hs-news.com

[HS News]

The decision made by the Obama administration this week to focus its deportation efforts on serious threats to national security should be applauded by Latinos and progressives alike. It seems that President Obama has finally expressed his support for the Latino base that helped elect him in 2008.

Yet, while the administration’s policy shift will provide relief for tens of thousands of undocumented citizens unjustly living in fear of deportation, I find it unfortunate that the decision was made for political reason rather than on its moral merit.
hs-news.com

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HS News:
The decision made by the Obama administration this week to focus its deportation efforts on serious threats to national security should be applauded by Latinos and progressives alike. It seems that President Obama has finally expressed his support for the Latino base that helped elect him in 2008.

Yet, while the administration’s policy shift will provide relief for tens of thousands of undocumented citizens unjustly living in fear of deportation, I find it unfortunate that the decision was made for political reason rather than on its moral merit.
hs-news.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you think political decisions are motivated by?
Which fool had started this "He did good thing but we don't like why he did it" mantra?
Praise or criticize decisions on merits and short/long term impact on you, not based on WHY he did it.
"D.amned if you don't , d.amned if you do".This is too ridiculous to comment.

Focus attention on relevant factors. The opponents scream "AMNESTY", why not spend at least some energy on pointing out how restrictive this memo is and thus demonstrate the utter unreasonableness of those who criticize it without bothering to read it?

[unique]

There are two reasons for this decision, one is the obvious that you pointed out. The other and bigger reason, is simply because they (USICE) cannot meet their 2011 quota of 486,000 deportations. So, as an excuse for failing, they now will say "the goal is not 486,000 deportations" but to focus on criminals. Of course this is misleading, as it has always been the priority to deport criminal aliens. Most criminal aliens are simply rounded up from jails and prisons around the Country where they are already incarcerated.

I say, since ICE no longer needs to deport so many people, and since America’s highways are in such bad shape. And since American’s will gladly do any job a Mexican would do. Why not just put ICE in charge of fixing Americas roads?

At least all us illegal taxpayers will have nice roads to drive on.

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unique:
There are two reasons for this decision, one is the obvious that you pointed out. The other and bigger reason, is simply because they (USICE) cannot meet their 2011 quota of 486,000 deportations. So, as an excuse for failing, they now will say "the goal is not 486,000 deportations" but to focus on criminals. Of course this is misleading, as it has always been the priority to deport criminal aliens. Most criminal aliens are simply rounded up from jails and prisons around the Country where they are already incarcerated.

I say, since ICE no longer needs to deport so many people, and since America’s highways are in such bad shape. And since American’s will gladly do any job a Mexican would do. Why not just put ICE in charge of fixing Americas roads?

At least all us illegal taxpayers will have nice roads to drive on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are misleading as usual.
First of all no administration has on record so many deportations than the current administration. They are already deporting above wildest projections of previous admins.

Second, to prioritize is not to waive any quota. Again, you are mis-leading, you keep making things up as your knees getting sores you know from what.

It is not about reducing the number of deportations, it's about choosing WHOM to detain and deport, instead of just picking lottery tickets and hoping it's a baddest criminal rather than a 90 years old grandma 1 day beyond her I-94.

The number of illegals (officially) is around 11 millions.
Funds are being allocated for removal of... approximately 400,000 [aliens] per year.

Unless CONGRESS increases the removal budget by 20 TIMES there is no way on Earth any executive strategy will remove them all in one year.

So, do what they might, at the end of the year they are destined to end up with 11,000,000 minus ~500,000 most plus any new entrants. Do simple math!

Now, if you were in charge of ICE/DHS , had 11 mil to remove and had resources to remove only half a million AT MOST, whom would you prefer to deport first?

Wouldn't you want to have at least some prioritization in place, so you don't put in buses nannies while serial killers roam the streets?

I mean, this is egregiously stupid and ridiculous to attack this administration even from enforcement perspective, because, by all means. they are doing the best logical enforcement with the funds they get.

If anything, you can blame the Congress for not allocating more funds to remove greater than half-million aliens per year, but what the Admin has got to do with it?

Stupid Mullah Tanton tool !!!

[HectorLuisAlamoJr]

I would argue that crimes done with the best intentions could be just as regrettable as great actions done with the worst intentions. As I try to explain in the article, I appreciate what the President has done; I just don't agree with how and why he's done it. The administration says that deporting DREAM Act kids places too much time and energy in the wrong place. It's true, but the administration shouldn't state that as its primary reason for altering its policy on deportation. Instead of saying "if I could deport them all, I would," he should be saying "even if I could deport them all, I wouldn't." He should be arguing that not only can we not afford to deport every illegal immigrant, we shouldn't deport every illegal immigrant in the first place.

[OldE]

Welcome to ilw.com forum and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I will address your concerns in the order you wrote.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HectorLuisAlamoJr:
I would argue that crimes done with the best intentions could be just as regrettable as great actions done with the worst intentions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you contradict yourself here. Strictly speaking, if Obama declared that he would not enforce certain laws he would indeed be in breach of law and his oath. That would constitute a crime.
According to your own view it would be regrettable if "crimes done with the best intentions". How then could he say "even if I could deport them all, I would not" and still meet your approval?
There is a logical fallacy there. And a plain , unveiled suggestion for him do something that would inevitably be basis to condemn him later.
So, how do you explain your own position? Do you find yourself consistent making those two contradictory statements? If yes, please explain how do you reconcile those contradictions in your mind?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As I try to explain in the article, I appreciate what the President has done; I just don't agree with how and why he's done it. The administration says that deporting DREAM Act kids places too much time and energy in the wrong place. It's true, but the administration shouldn't state that as its primary reason for altering its policy on deportation. Instead of saying "if I could deport them all, I would," he should be saying "even if I could deport them all, I wouldn't." He should be arguing that not only can we not afford to deport every illegal immigrant, we shouldn't deport every illegal immigrant in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, there is a contradiction in your writing which I have mentioned above.
Next, why not you use the same energy and effort ridiculing those who call the memo prioritizing enforcement an amnesty instead of questioning the timing and intention of the memo?
Why not write articles to invite broader discussion of what public at large considers proper course of action and give readers clear explanation of arguments on both sides?

Keep in mind, when asked I never tried to hide the fact that I wished Hillary won the primaries and got elected to WH. I even wished for McCain to win after Hillary lost primaries.
I always thought that the executive job of such magnitude and weight on ones' shoulders requires more than just a few years of legislative experience and I never had any illusions about what Obama could or could not deliver as a President. If you wanted an African-American President why wouldn't you consider instead Collin Powell?
So, much of what has happened after November 2008 didn't surprise me at all, as opposed to many others who had tears in eyes when he got elected.

But I can't help except noticing how unjust the charge you lay now on this administration and President is , putting him in a position where you d.amn him if he does and d.amn him if he doesn't.
Why you people on left betray so much?
First you betrayed your President Clinton by not forcefully standing by his side and not questioning "since when it was the business of public, in a Free Country,with Constitutional protection against unreasonable invasion of privacy, to put on trial ones personal relationships and intimate affairs that had nothing to do with breach of criminal law?"
Then you betrayed Hillary by not standing by her side when she unquestionably was the stronger candidate of two. You supported Obama by any means you could and now that he is your President you once again do nothing other than betray him and help to run his reputation into ground by saying he is an immoral President for doing what you approve of. And you do this instead of doing whatever you can to repel the ungrounded accusations of "backdoor amnesty"?

Frankly, I do not understand YOUR motivation in writing this article. Would you mind to explain what motivated YOU to criticize the President for doing what you say you approve him of doing?

Best regards,
OldE

[unique]

[quote]First of all no administration has on record so many deportations than the current administration. They are already deporting above wildest projections of previous admins.

<span class="ev_code_RED">So what. They still cannot meet their self-imposed quota. </span>

Second, to prioritize is not to waive any quota. Again, you are mis-leading, you keep making things up as your knees getting sores you know from what.

It is not about reducing the number of deportations, it's about choosing WHOM to detain and deport, instead of just picking lottery tickets and hoping it's a baddest criminal rather than a 90 years old grandma 1 day beyond her I-94.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Criminal aliens have always been the priority with every administration. </span>


The number of illegals (officially) is around 11 millions.
Funds are being allocated for removal of... approximately 400,000 [aliens] per year.

<span class="ev_code_RED">I said 486,000 you called me a liar then you say the same thing.. Dumb Dumb</span>

Unless CONGRESS increases the removal budget by 20 TIMES there is no way on Earth any executive strategy will remove them all in one year.

So, do what they might, at the end of the year they are destined to end up with 11,000,000 minus ~500,000 most plus any new entrants. Do simple math!

<span class="ev_code_RED">The math is simple/ 1 they can’t meet their quota.

2. The 11 million are undocumented (that means unknown to the Government) That also mean somewhat protected unless they commit a crime and them become known to the Government.

Who gets arrested then since criminals account for only 25% of the deportee population? The ones who followed the law, went through to US immigration system, paid all the fees, paid income tax, and got denied. How and why?

Because they are documented. </span>

[Someone12]

A M N E S T Y = amnesty no matter what silly name you give to it.

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unique:
<span class="ev_code_RED">So what. They still cannot meet their self-imposed quota. </span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It still does not negate the fact that they removed so far more than any other admin ever did.
You may want to run 40mph, but as long as you run 30mph you are still far ahead of competition. Hardly a cause of embarrassment to simulate a knee injury and stop in the middle of the track.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_RED">Criminal aliens have always been the priority with every administration. </span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Criminal aliens may have been a priority, but the statistics show that there were too many collateral damages in the course of prioritizing them.
For instance, INS would come after one criminal guy who was already in Guatemala and nab, instead, two dozen of his roommates whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and nothing else.
Without discretion field officers had no choice and no reason not to arrest every single one of undocumented alien they encountered during such raids.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_RED">I said 486,000 you called me a liar then you say the same thing.. Dumb Dumb</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't call you a liar because of the specific targeted number of deportation.
I called you a Mullah-Tanton tool and misleading poster because, no matter if you use accurate figures or ones you made up, you always distort the interpretation of events just enough to put every occurrence from its' head to its' feet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_RED">The math is simple/ 1 they can’t meet their quota. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? If the quota is above resources allocated ,or manpower available, how is it to negatively impact the administration? What administration is to be blamed for?

I give you $100 and you know that everyone before you cut 2 acres[most] of my grass for $60. You say you will cut 10 acres for a $100 but end up cutting only 5.
How is it embarrassing situation to put sugar in your mow truck engine and feign technical failure to stall doing your job?
I don't get your logic (surprise, surprise...)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[color:RED]
2. The 11 million are undocumented (that means unknown to the Government) That also mean somewhat protected unless they commit a crime and them become known to the Government.

Who gets arrested then since criminals account for only 25% of the deportee population? The ones who followed the law, went through to US immigration system, paid all the fees, paid income tax, and got denied. How and why?

Because they are documented. </span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is this supposed to mean?
First, every single illegal alien is, by definition, undocumented. There are no "documented" illegals. The only difference is that some have paper-trail while others don't.
Is it more likely to register under radar when you have a paper-trail than if you lived without absolutely any trace of your existence?
I guess only IQ challenged wouldn't know the answer.

Nevertheless, the ones who got arrested and deported most are simply the ones who ,upon encounter with law enforcement officers, couldn't prove their legal status in US (whether they had extra paper-tral or not was secondary at such instance).

Broken taillight and no DL could easily get you arrested in some localities, whether you are EWI or visa overstay who paid your taxes to the dime. With all arrested aliens subject to ICE check, their next stop could very easily be a contracted prison facility , before they were granted a one way trip home.

Many traffic cops didn't want to be immigration law enforcers and were reluctant to ask for immigration status or to make arrest, giving instead tickets and warnings. But some cops did actually decide to do the opposite. Many times ICE would refuse to pick up illegals booked for minor traffic violations, but in other instances they would.

The whole thing is very complicated and it shows throughout your posts that you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Sanders]

What the new policy IS:
The Obama Administration announced the creation of a high-level working group made
up of Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice officials who are to
do the following:
? Review all cases already pending before the immigration courts. Those that are
considered “low priority” may be administratively closed. Those that are
considered a “high priority” will be prosecuted more aggressively.
? There are no rules or guarantees that a particular type of case will be considered
a “low” or “high” priority. Recent guidelines are helpful, but no one can tell you if
your case is a low priority--only immigration authorities will make that decision.
? In the future, immigration authorities will review the cases people before they are
placed in removal proceedings. Those that are “low priority” may not be referred
to the immigration court.
? Create department-wide guidance to help USCIS, CBP, and ICE agents and
officers make better, more consistent decisions about who to place in removal
proceedings.
? Issue guidance on providing discretion in compelling cases for persons who
already have a final order of removal.
In other words, the August 18
th
announcement was preliminary and nothing has been
implemented yet. Any details about how the review process will work, what cases will
be considered low priority or how to have a particular case considered have not been
decided.
The best course of action is to consult an immigration lawyer or accredited
representative, not to take action because a friend, neighbor or coworker
encourages you to act.
An online directory of AILA attorneys is available at www.ailalawyer.com
http://shusterman.com/pdf/notamnesty811.pdf

[OldE]

Good points and links.

[unique]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
Good points and links. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">Thanks</span>

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unique:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
Good points and links. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">Thanks</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but not to you (unless Sanders is your alter id?)