Immigration: Obama crosses the Rubicon, alea iacta est

They can also create jobs. Unless you are saying you have to be rich and white to do that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, there isn't anything automatic in regards to becoming a citizen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that doesn't apply in most cases. If you came here on a visa, the most that can happen to you is you get deported.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And prevented from returning for a space of 2 years or more.

 

So if they are allowed to stay for the time needed to apply for citizenship then they could after Obamas plan ceases to exist couldn't they.

 

Most illegal aliens don't have visas because they came here illegally.

 

To become a naturalized US citizen, you must meet several general requirements including age, residence, presence, moral character, English language, U.S. history, etc. Below is a list of basic requirements for naturalization, for more details please download USCIS Guide to Naturalization(03/2012 edition):

• You are a lawful permanent resident (green card holder);
• You must be 18 years of age or older;
• You have resided in the US as a LPR for at least 5 years, with no single absence from the US of more than one year. Absence of more than 6 months may restart the clock of counting Continuous Residence (Note that "resided" means "retained legal residence," which is different than "physically present" in the following requirement);
• You have been physically present in the US for at least half of the last 5 years (30 months) ("physically present" means you are actually in the U.S.);
• You have resided within a state or district for at least 3 months;
• You must be a person of good moral character (certain crimes such as aggravated felony, drug related, gambling offenses, prostitution, etc. will most likely disqualify an applicant);
• You can read, write, speak and understand basic English;
• You have a basic knowledge of US history and government (see test questions);
• You must show attachment to the principles of the Constitution;
• You may also apply for citizenship if
  1. you have been a lawful permanent resident for 3 years if you obtained LPR status based on a marriage to a U.S. citizen, and you have been married to and living with the same citizen for the past three years (Note that the 3-year period starts with the date your green card is approved, even if it is a conditional green card); or,
  2. you have served in the U.S. Armed Forces; or,
  3. you belong to one of several groups eligible for naturalization (e.g. people who are nationals but not citizens).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...xYKIAg&usg=AFQjCNGH24XPHUrzpOWkOW_FCYyTueDfbA

 

They could apply for citizenship now for that matter, it wouldn't be granted for the same reason, they are illegals.

Only a change in the law can grant them citizenship. They are not lawful residents.

 

Correct - they could become citizens AFTER Obama's plan ceases to exist. Which is my point. It does not give citizenship to anyone, despite the claims from FOX.

 

Is there any point in voting if the people you vote for can't affect legislation?

 

So long as they all agree, they can do anything. Some things require a super majority.

 

There have always been a small percentage of layabouts who won't work.
And some people are between jobs, or very close to retirement.
If you can get the unemployment level down to about 3%, the effort required to lower it further becomes uneconomic.

 

"So long as they all agree, they can do anything. "
Not sure if you are joking or not. That sounds a little Stalinist in tone.
"No Opposition. No problem."

Allowing millions of illegal immigrants to work legally should at least require a majority.
Not that I'm opposed to the idea.
I'd probably be in favour of a similar action in the UK, but no prospective Prime Minister would dare to propose it.
I would also be in favour of tougher border controls here.
At the moment we have leaky borders because it suits employers.

It's your country.
Don't you mind power being centralised?

 

That isn’t what I said. Our Congress can do anything it wants, provided it has enough votes to do so. It can change the constitution and over the course of our history, congress has done so numerous times. But it isn’t an easy process. It must pass congress with a 2/3 majority vote and it must be ratified by 2/3rds of the states. That isn’t Stalinism by any stretch of the imagination.
The US isn’t as democratic as many folks, including Americans, believe it to be. George II was not elected with a majority vote. George II lost the majority of votes and if the Supreme Court would have allowed a fair count of the Florida vote, George II would have lost the Electoral College vote as well. One of the most undemocratic institutions in the US is the US Supreme Court. Its members are elected to life terms and are supposed to be above politics. But the current Republican controlled Supreme Court is as political as it gets. Republicans used the court to give Bush II the presidency and they are using it now to systematically chip away at the Affordable Care Act. What they cannot do through democratic processes, they get through the US Supreme Court.

Well, they are working now. They are working illegally and they are not paying taxes, again illegally. Obama is charged with enforcing the laws of the land. But he isn’t a magical fairy. As I said before, he doesn’t have the resources do fully execute current law because Congress has not allocated funds to fully enforce the law. Two, Obama isn’t allowing illegal aliens to work illegally. What he is doing is requiring them to pay their taxes, something they should be doing anyway but are not for fear of deportation. He isn’t giving them Green Cards.

The same is true here. Employers want these laborers. They fill a need. That is why they are here. That is why both the US Chamber of Commerce and unions want immigration reform and support what Obama has done. A recent survey indicates most Americans favor Obama’s executive order.

Yes centralized power does bother me. But some degree of it is needed. It is a struggle that our founding fathers wrestled with, it wasn’t easy. When this country was first formed it was a loose confederation of states. It didn’t work. So the founding fathers found it necessary to replace The Articles of Confederation with a more centralized form of government and created the Constitution of The United States which currently governs our country. Some degree of centralization is needed in order to get things done.

 

There's nothing divisive about anything Obama has ever done. Seriously - the guy has been a pushover for "compromise" and "debate" and delay and softball negotiations and wishy-washy muddling for six years now. All the divisiveness is from his political enemies and their instrumental media - all of it. Most of it is fantasy based.

Meanwhile, the matter of this particular executive order has been open for debate for several years - including at least two years public warning of exactly this action, if no debate were held and no legislation addressing this matter passed by Congress. And the action taken here by Obama was executive action - it's undertaken by an individual President, by definition. It's part of his job, his sworn duty, to handle situations like this with executive action. He's long overdue on this one, having delayed acting for years past the indicated time - but that's his style.

It's Congress that couldn't get a law passed. Blame the failure on the ones who failed.

Of course it can. It's his job now, as described by Reagan administration ideology and expanded under W&Cheney to near-ludicrous dimensions. If you don't like your President to have such executive powers, quit voting for Republican Congressmen and their allies - the remaining liberals in Congress have been trying to rein in the Unitary Executive for decades now: give them a chance.

 

That wishy washy muddling is the process of legislature.
If you want a dictator who can "get things done", you are right to support Obama's actions.

 

Well, Obama was the one engaged in it - so my point stands. Obama has done nothing, ever, even slightly "divisive".

But in reality, since Obama as President is in the Executive branch and the legislature whose process was completely crippled and dysfunctional was the US Congress,

Obama's wishy washy muddling was not a process of legislature but instead the process of attempted compromise and cooperation with the US Republican Party in Congress, in the expectation that they wouldn't actually do what they said they were going to do - attempt to destroy the functioning of the US federal government, and blame the President for the consequences to the country.

These expectations were disappointed, consistently, for six years. They did what they said they were going to do. The Republican Party in Congress spent that entire time attempting to destroy the Obama Presidency, as a tactical move in their forty year old overall agenda of crippling the regulatory and taxation capabilities of the Union, rolling back the New Deal and the Civil Rights legislation, and restoring the dignity and power of the Confederacy and corporate plantations.

Obama has done nothing - absolutely nothing - "divisive" or "dictatorial". He's taken executive action, as is required by his oath of office and job description, in strict accordance with the laws of Congress and the temporary needs of an emergency situation. The only possible complaint any reality based observer might have is how long it took him to do get around to doing his job as laid out for him by Congress.

Any time Congress wants to supersede these temporary actions they demanded with proper governing legislation, all they have to do is enact it. They've had six years, at least, already.

 

I'd put it somewhat higher than that but in general I agree - you will never reach 100% employment, and the effort to make that happen would do far more harm than good.

 

Another reason to split health care from employment status.

But the US has had lower unemployment rates with simultaneous lower employment rates in the past - when wages were higher, more people could be supported by each job and fewer jobs were necessary for basic economic health.

Life was better then, at least for white people in the US.

 

Agreed. But the US has also had historically low employment rates with lower wages (both minimum wage and average wage in real dollars) from 1940 to 1950 or so. And still many people consider those days "the good old days" where life was better.