A potential Department of Homeland Security shutdown would directly affect lawmakers’ pocketbooks under a bill introduced in the House this week.
The Democratic measure, sponsored by Reps. Brad Ashford (Neb.), Gwen Graham (Fla.), Scott Peters (Calif.) and Ami Bera (Calif.), would halt pay for members of Congress if they don’t agree to a new round of funding for the agency by Friday, in which case DHS would partially close.
The legislation is similar to several bills that would have halted lawmakers’ salaries during the government-wide shutdown of 2013. Those measures never made it out of committee that year.
Federal statute only allows lawmakers to change the salaries of future members of Congress, so the new House bill would put their wages in an escrow account until the potential Homeland Security shutdown ends.
“All across the country, folks live by the idea that if you don’t do your job, you shouldn’t get paid,” Ashford said in a joint statement with the bill’s other sponsors. “The same should hold true for members of Congress.”
No Homeland Security employees would be paid in the event of a shutdown, but 85 percent of the department’s roughly 240,000 employees would remain on the job because their roles are vital to national security or funded from sources outside of Congress.
“If the hardworking men and women in the Department of Homeland Security will continue to go to work but not receive a paycheck, members of Congress who have failed to do their job should not receive a paycheck either,” Peters said in the statement.
With past shutdowns, Congress has always voted to pay federal employees retroactively after the funding lapses ended. However, the policy is not automatic.
Republicans have threatened to shut down Homeland Security unless President Obama reverses his plans to shield an estimated 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Congress is comprised of idiots. All over the world there are terrorist attacks. We spend billions and billions of dollars per year to protect Americans at home and abroad from terrorists. Stupid Congress plays Russian roulette with homeland security. They deserve to have their pay frozen. When 85% of those working for DHS are mandatory essential workers who will be working for free, Congress needs to shape up or lose their pay.
Most Americans tire of these antics, especially over something as important as our security. All this other crap is just that: CRAP.
Rather than defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the oath of office needs to state that they will defend the people of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Just a thought.
Shame on Congress for being the partisan AHs that they generally are. Fund DHS and move on. Get over the obsession with immigration. Obviously something is wrong with our policy or we wouldn’t have 15 million people here illegally. Let’s document people normally and stop playing games. Funding of government agencies should never be used as extortion or ransom.
I disagree. The other interpretation is that the Dems refuse to allow DHS to be funded without allowing this executive action to provide de facto amnesty.
No U.S. president has the right to arbitrarily change a law, regardless of whether it is about amnesty or not. When the next Republican president is elected, should he be able to arbitrarily reduce the number of weeks into a pregnancy that abortion is legal without legislation approved by Congress? If this executive order is allowed to stand, it drastically increases the power of the presidency. Even those that support immigration reform should be against this executive action, because it upsets the checks and balances of our Republic.
The law hasn’t changed. Obama has prioritized enforcement. There is a difference. Do you want the criminals deported or families? You cannot deport everyone. Who attached the SHS funding bill to the executive order?
Re pregnancy. neither should be able to do that. Roe v Wade is very clear about the trimesters. Congress feels more than comfortable setting time limits not outlined in Roe. Tinkering with Roe also upsets checks and balances. It ignores Supreme Court decisions, just like that dude down in Alabama is doing. Judge Moore.
I do support immigration reform. What we have now is out-dated and not working.
Oh, Good morning Kelly. Are you a House of Cards fan? I am deeply into it. It isn’t moving as quickly as I had planned. Interruptions.
Is what President Obama doing any different than what other Presidents have done – http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19920813&id=W7JOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qxQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5493,4694329
Congress is failing us. The lack of addressing the immigration problem, tax reform, SS, debt, deficits, etc – they are inept.
Letting the Country or large Dept go to the brink of no funding is just another example of a failing Congress. How much money has been wasted ‘planning and preparing’ for defunding? How many programs are put on hold waiting to see what funding is going to happen? This is real – no organization can operate going week to week not knowing what the funding will look like – no organization. Having the US operate like this is worse than many third world countries. What is the impact to those employees moral and finances – many of them are living paycheck to paycheck – and even temporarily missing a few has an impact. If my payroll is a day late it impacts me as I have auto payments go out the same day the paycheck hits.
It is not right. Where is the uproar that the State laws are no enforced?? How many employers skirt the state income tax by paying workers cash?
Congress NEEDS to address immigration. Obama has said he will reverse the executive order if Congress acts. They need to act.
1 thumbs up to Pat.
Kelly is right about this. As they have in the past, Senate Democrates would rather put all of us at greater risk rather than allow current law to continue to be enforced. That is the issue here. Obama’s executive actions are not within the purview or scope of existing law and – no – its not like what other Presidents have done. They implemented law within the confines of the law and its legislative history – they never violated it or tried to dictate their own new or expanded law. Worse, never before has a President threatened Federal employees of other law enforcement officers for not complying with his dictates, which, in the case of Federal employees violates everything about the civil service – but could still be career destroying and expensive.
As for DHS employees, yes, most are deemed “essential” and must work regardless. But federal law prevents them from working for free – that is misleeading if not an outright Democratic lie. They can only be paid upon the passage of an appropriation, but requires no special authorization to receive back pay. Been there done that. Non essential employees – only – could get screwed if other provisisons are not provided for to pay their retroactive salaries- which has never – ever – not happened.
Who joined the two notions? Not the Democrats.
Let’s just get DHS funded. Congress has to approve back pay. This is absurd. I hate Congress.
To-ma-TOE … To-MAH-to. At the risk is mixing metaphors, there are always two sides to a pancake. Regardless of that fact, it is still the same pancake. The pancake here under discussion is the failure of our government structure to be able to effectively govern our country. The GOP wants to argue about one side of the issue (pancake again) and the Dems focus on the other. The result… the pancake remains on the floor where the government dropped it and no one can eat it.
We can only blame ourselves for voting for a split government during the last election cycle.
TERM LIMITS – TERM LIMITS – TERM LIMITS !!!
@Moon-howler
Democates joined the two issues. DHS funding is secure within the Budget, its the Democrats that are threatening not to pass and veto legislation if it passes that would prohibit any expenditures implementing an illegal executive order. The slippery slope here is getting steep for the future as a precedent between the two branches of government. If the President can issue new or expanded rights without legislation and if the Congress does not then retain the power of the purse – we are in very deep trouble.
Ah for the good old days when the problem was with the Congress micro-managing the Executive Branch.
@Moon-howler
“Obama has prioritized enforcement. ”
Providing millions of work permits is not “prioritized enforcement.”
The DHS is funded…unless the Democrats stop it. They would support Obama’s illegal activity over the security of the nation.
Its funded for a week. More brinksmanship.
I would far rather have people with work permits than not, wouldn’t you?
I think we have to distinquish between policy and laws enacted by congress.
And worse.. I luv the Democrat talking points that –well, the President had to do it by executive order becase the Congress wouldn’t and deporting illegals is immoral.
Holy smokes; Lets let the President violate the Constitution, separation of powers and existing law because he canot get what he wants from the Congress. Gee, I bet he’s the first one to have that problem – probably racism. So lets scrub the Riechstag and just make “necessary” law by decree.
Warning: “Illegals” isn’t permitted on this blog. Think about why. Examine your own feelings and you will understand why I don’t accept that language on this blog.
Every law enforcement officer makes a decision every day as to what level of enforcement they are going to use that day. Every policeman decides whether to give you a speeding ticket at 1 mph over the posted speed limit or 15 mph over that limit. Every construction inspector decides whether to issue a violation when your hall way is only 35-3/4″ wide and not 36″ or to let it slide and consider it “field tolerances”. Every prosecuting attorney decides on how to spend his or her time in prosecuting cases. Should they prosecute the guy that yelled at his kid in public or the guy that stabbed his wife (given a finite amount of prosecutorial resources).
The President is a law enforcement officer and is making a decision on where best to spend resources. I didn’t like the guy speeding at 1 mph over the speed limit, the contractor who made my hallway non-code compliant, or the AH that verbally abused his kid in my presence. BUT, I pay those law enforcement officers to make informed decisions based on their understanding of the situations. An understanding that I don’t possess. I don’t second guess them. I don’t like it but that is life.
I will support the positions of Blue and Cargosquid when they get elected President. Until then, they are just noise.
@Moon-howler
“I would far rather have people with work permits than not, wouldn’t you?”
Since they are here illegally and it is illegal for them to work….uh….NO…I wouldn’t.
That is called amnesty.
No. That is not “amnesty.” Amnesty is forgiveness from all, a pardon.
You are aware that some illegal immigrants are given work permits? If they have work permits, then they aren’t working illegally.
“Amnesty” is a dog whistle for “I hate immigrants.”
@BSinVA
Thanks for your noise.
Way to mischaracterize what the President is doing. Too bad he ISN’T actually executing the laws of the nation faithfully, as his oath demands.
Cargo: It is apparent that you really don’t understand basic law enforcement. Don’t fret, you are in good company. Many people do not understand that law enforcement must be measured because the resources available tend to limit capabilities. Also the level of enforcement is largely dependent upon the will of the community. I would expect that you would take exception if your local police ticketed you for going 1 mile per hour over the speed limit.
In the same fashion, I’ll bet that the President is judging public opinion regarding illegal immigration the same way a local police officer does when facing the MPH dilemma. His decision to reduce enforcement is based upon the public opinion that the illegals here, unless criminally inclined, should be able to find a way to stay here since that are hard working, clean, honest, and civic minded people.
I will repeat… all (every one) of the undocumented people here that I know are family oriented, religious, tax paying, blood donating, clean living, honest, community supporting, polite, and ambitious people. These are the people that I want to be in my country and the President has my absolute support on this issue.
This is more than just an enforcement decision. He is arbitrarily letting millions of people stay in the country, which has huge policy, budget, political and cultural implications. All the additional people on welfare affects the federal budget which is the domain of Congress. It is a momentous decision that should require legislation to enact.
The failure of Congress to pass what the president wants does not abrogate the constitution. The president has extraordinary powers during time of war or emergency, but neither situation applies to immigration.
Illegal immigrants aren’t entitled to welfare. There are limited resources. ICE has only 40 agents in Virginia. I would far rather them handle criminals rather than busting up families. There are pretty strict rules about families being exempt from deportation.
It is just a smarter use of resources if you ask me. The President can set all sorts of policy as it pertains to immigration including ramping up border security. I don’t hear anyone howling about him doing THAT.
@Moon-howler
I have heard really good things about the House of Cards. I plan to try to catch up and watch it.
Democrats have become “The Party of No” and supporters of the trashing of the separation of powers.
BSinVa obviously never met or even saw a member of MS-13 or the 18th Street gang. He must live a very sheltered life. We had one arrested here some time ago who was wanted for gang violence on a warrant out of PWC. That was in the middle of those very loud and animated PWC illegal immigration debates a couple of years ago. Took quite awhile for the police anti-gang squad to get a handle on these guys in our community and chase many of them back into Maryland. But not before one horrendous gang murder/rape of innocent civilians which had the whole county up in arms, not to mention the other illegal immigrant who was raping elderly women in their own homes in our neighborhood until he was finally tracked down.
I recall stopping at a local fast food joint to get a bite and winding up dining in the midst of a bunch of rough looking guys dressed in black and wearing guns. That was our anti-gang squad. The program still exists and still has a lot work all over NoVa, which is one of the principal locales in this country for gangbangers. In fact, the most recent word out of Yuma, Arizona, is that they are catching MS-13 gangbangers crossing back into this country after being deported and that their prior rap sheets are heavy with violence and with sex offenses against underage girls. It looks like these guys believe the border is enough of a sieve to take another chance. Makes you wonder how many weren’t caught. Did you see that Black father from Los Angeles testifying before Congress on how his son was murdered by illegal immigrant gangbangers? Sad testimony.
Law enforcement also depends on the will of the supervising authority to have the law enforced. In this country we are sending illegal immigrants with criminal rap sheets back into society, and threatening our own federal enforcers with dire personal consequences if they do not follow the administration’s new rules passed without benefit of Congressional approval. We even have snitch lines for the illegal immigrants to rat out our own law enforcers. Wonderful.
I can vouch for BS. He has not been sheltered.
The gang bangers you describe are the very people we want to get rid of. No one argues with that. Why pull our limited resources off these creeps and have them packing up families. I want our ICE and Gang task forces ridding the county of criminals who are just nasty Mofos.
I want them in prison, not going through the revolving door. Once they have served their time, then I want them deported. I would like to deport some of our very own citizen thugs and criminals also. Too bad that can’t happen.
Amnesty is allowing them to stay without enforcing our laws. If they have work permits, they have them illegally. It is against federal law to hire illegal aliens.
And your defintion is complete and utter BS. I have immigrants in my family. They support strong enforcement of the immigration laws. His attitude is that he made by playing by the rules… why don’t they?
Not necessarily. The government gives some work permits out to those who are not here legally.
Go to the dictionary. Read the definition of amnesty, then come back and tell me my definition of utter BS.
I stick by my suggestion about dog whistles. You must be related to “the good ones.”
@BSinVA
And you ignored the fact that the President is not doing selective enforcement. He overstepped his authority and is offering a defacto amnesty.
The President is judging the weakness of the opposition and the cowardliness of the GOP. He is setting up the legalization of the illegal immigrant community.
The illegal immigration community is already mixed. Many families are comprised of people with a TPS, someone else undocumented, and citizen children.
You might want to check out immigration law and make absolutely certain that you are speaking of law and not policy. Policy changes all the time and it isn’t through Congress.
I hope he does set up a situation where those undocumented people who have no criminal record can pay fines, taxes and get their status adjusted. They obviously wont be voting for him. Just what are you so afraid of?
What is selective enforcement? He cannot deport everyone. Who should he deport? Some kid with a 4.0 average or some gangbanger criminal like Wolve just described?
@Moon-howler
If he gives them work permits, then driver’s licenses, they will be registered to vote through motor voter.
Guarantee it. They won’t be voting for him, but they will be voting Democrat.
They should be deporting as they find them, and they should make it hard to find a job, etc.
As it stands now…. they are eligible for massive tax refunds…..
You have to be a citizen to register to vote in state and federal elections. You have to be a citizen unless a local jurisdiction waves that right.
Do you really think most undocumented residents are just itching to vote? Do you know any undocumented immigrants? Most aren’t really interested.
What you have said is just pure bullshit and indicates to me that you are very far removed from the rank and file immigrant, legal or illegal.
Now you have them getting tax refunds. From what source? This I have to hear. Please don’t become our local nativist. What are you going to do when some kid in school tells you that he or she is undocumented? Are you going to have a bat phone with ICE’s number on speed dial?
You have no sense of priority. You must not have gangs down where you live. We have some real Billy bad-asses. I want those criminals deported, not some nice family who is working hard and contributing to the country. The fact is, there are about 11-15 million undocumented immigrants in this country. About half have overstayed their visas.
I want criminals deported and I want those watched and/or deported if on terrorist lists. Families are way down my list of concerns.
Some conservatives are always trying to find trouble where there is none. Geez.
@Moon-howler
Found this elsewhere.
It seems your position is found in the first paragraph. The answer below is valid in the 2nd paragraph. None of the below is from me. I found it.
__________________________________________________________________
So the simple fact — the simple fact is there is no plan to deport 11 million people. We should give them a path to legal status, where they work, where they don’t receive government benefits, where they don’t break the law, where they learn English, and where they make a contribution to our society. That’s what we need to be focused on.”
This is a straw man. This is a false choice as if there is no third option between rounding people up, asking for papers and deporting them and making them citizens. Romney was absolutely correct when he indicated that if illegals could not get jobs, bank accounts, mortgages, access to social services and free education for their children that they would self deport. No one breaks into an amusement park if after getting in they still can’t ride the rides.
Another rinky dink analogy. I hate analogies used with immigrants. Its dehumanizing.
Romney wouldn’t know jack about illegal immigrants if they weren’t working on his lawn and on his car elevator. I will issue the same warning to you as I did to blue. “Illegals” is unacceptable terminology on this blog. Just think of it as our N word. the I word. Don’t make me say why.
A path to legal status is not citizenship. I don’t care if they have to wait 20 years to apply for citizenship. That isn’t really an issue that’s on the front burner with most immigrants. There is no plan to deport them. Why would there be if they are behavior and being productive?
When we start talking about “rounding up” human beings, I start seeing little mustaches and hearing goose-stepping in the distance. Let’s face it, we can’t round up 11 million residents and deport that many people, no matter how badly you might want to.
I want to know how many undocumented immigrants you know. I am guessing not too many.
Sorry, I thought those were your words.
I will email you how to block quote on here.
I still think Romney is full of crap.
@Moon-howler
As a matter of law and as a matter of consequences they have to deport both. Nobody argues that criminals not be deported – nothwithstanding that anyone here in violation of our immigrantion laws is a criminal. Take that off the table. Now then, the issue is the deportation of those here illegally. Do we open our hearts and be soft to this crime and allow them to stay? That sounds so nice and warm and fuzzy, but it encourages other to violate the law in the hope that they can stay. Its the unintended consequence of fuzzy progressive thinking – with all the cost and expenses associated with that decision. Are there anomolies – sure there are and they can be dealt with the in the context of enforcding the law generally – and its called immigration reform not a general amnesty, but I am sick of this Administration’s efforts to cheapen American citizenshiop so as to be meaningless. Unfair, pick any South American country and mirror their immigration rules
Just being here isn’t even a misdemeanor–any more than speeding or failure to yield the right of way. Crossing the border without authorization is a criminal act.
Obama has not suggested citizenship. He is suggesting temporary protection for those out of status who have citizen children if and only if there is no crime.
Don’t use cutesy word to attempt to mimic or demean me. No one mentioned warm and fuzzy.
Its very clear to me that the only undocumented immigrants you know are the stereotypes used to drum up political fears and prejudices. You don’t know any real people with families who are just working to have a decent life and not hurting anyone.
@Moon-howler
So, let me understand your world view a bit better. Anyone who crosses the US border illegally and then stays out of felony level trouble for xx years (months?) should have the right to work without a work permit, recieve unemployment insurance, be licensed to drive, get a free primary education, and subsidized secondary education, have access to Obamacare and all of the other social benefits of citizenship under the rubric of having been granted “legal status. More, if, while they are here or if they can cross with their children and show that they were here from a very young age, they can demand the right to stay as the guardians of natural born citizens regardless of their criminal history. Your right, under these conditions there is no rush to become citizens – but of course that argument will not fly because sooner of later and the Obama Administration already has argued for letting them vote. To do otherwise is discriminatory, they are unrepresented and will be abused because it is racist isn’t it?
But then, isn’t challenging how many undocumented legal status immigrants we know – as a reason for asking that the law be obeyed – pulling out race card anyway? I ask again, what South American nation’s immigration rules would you prefer – or lets do it this way – once challenged, what is good for the goose is good for the gander – apply whatever their home country’s rules are if found here.
And as to the slippery slope of seeing little mustaches and hearing goose-stepping in the distance, my list of examples of that not so distant drum beat is already a lot longer than immigration abuse for the purposes of political gain – and its a lot closer than anyone wants to think. So, should we round up 11 million and deport them – no, should we continue to encourage / facilitate them to stay, the problem to continue and get worse by turning a blind eye to the incentives to come here illegally – NO – and that is where we disagree – everthing else is BS.
BTW, in the last week, Obama has killed the Keystone pipeline with all its national security implications, siezed the internet, cut off citizen access to legal ammunition – and treatened Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies with criminal charges if they (not violate the law) but enforce laws he disagrees with. I know, I know, that and all the other things that are going so well with this guy do not make any difference. At least they found the IRS e-mails.
Blue, before I read the rest and get really pissed off, let me say here and now…don’t try to think you know my world view. How f-ing presumptuous of you.
Now I am going to look at a few more birds before I respond to the rest of your nativist rant.
I beg to differ with cargo. What planet did you both fall off of.
Its very obvious you don’t know any illegal immigrants. I don’t know a single one on welfare. I don’t know a single one with unemployment insurance. You are just blowing smoke and pardon me, you don’t know what you are talking about. You have some sort of imaginary view of immigrants that simply is not realistic.
The incentives you speak of is a better life for themselves and their children. Look, not one wants illegal immigration. I feel strongly that we should know who is in our country. The best way to do that is to document people. I want criminals deported. I want decent, hard working people to be able to adjust their status, pay whatever fines are involved and continue being productive with proper documents.
Words like “self-deport”, “amnesty”, “illegals” are all dog whistles for nativist prejudices. Perhaps you ought to get to know some immigrants. I think you would change your tune.
I am glad Obama did what he did. I don’t feel warm and fuzzy. I feel like America is just a little less redneck because of it.
@Moon-howler
I didn’t use the word “illegals.”
Do you want me to change a copy/paste quote?
@blue
Well said.
The sky is falling….the sky is falling!!!
The sky already fell — in January 2009. Now we have to clean up the mess.
I am trying to determine what catastrophe happened January 2009.
None happened that I am aware of. Sept 2008 wasn’t so good.
Wolve: Let’s say there are two families that have sneaked across our borders without appropriate papers. One family joins a gang, robs the elderly and sells drugs to neighborhood children. The other family joins in the civic life of the town by sending their American born children to school, keeping their house and children clean, volunteering at church, working at two jobs and paying their payroll taxes.
Let’s also say that the government doesn’t have enough resources to send all undocumented aliens back to where they came from so they have to choose who they are going to deport. If you were President what would you do?? Remember, you do not have enough resources to deport everyone.
Standing ovation @BSinVA
@BSinVA
False choice.
The government prints money. They have the resources.
They don’t have the will.
Priorities. Americans are a little iffy on the entire subject of immigration and with good reason. Where did your people come from?
Correct choice.
@BSinVA
Sorry BS, you are asking for whistles and solutiions that cannot be discussed on this blog. They have already been rejected in favor of let’em all in.
Stretching the truth again. I never said you couldn’t discuss anything on this blog. I said you could not use the expression “illegals” because it is insulting and low class and fox newsy. Actually, I didn’t give you a reason. Now I am.
@blue
Correction, let em all in until they commit a serious crime – and then and only then deport.
Hmmm….And what if the second fellow was a carpenter or other craftsman who agreed to accept lower wages and lower benefits, if any benefits at all, and, in so doing, caused an American citizen or legal immigrant to lose a job? How would you handle that, BS?
How about bringing the force of existing law down on the employer who hired the second fellow? Or do we just continue to kiss off our laws as if they don’t matter and then reward those who cross our border without permission? And force otherwise honest businessmen to violate our laws and hire illegal workers so they can still compete in the marketplace?
Which reminds me, on another plane, of the recent case of Southern California Edison. SCE is laying off 400 American IT employees in order to replace them with new H-1B visa holders for India. And to dig the knife in just a bit deeper, they are asking the current workers to train their replacements if they want to continue to have a paycheck for awhile. 100 of the workers refused and quit. And despite evidence to the contrary, the big money guys are asking Congress for an open door for H-1B visas because they claim there aren’t enough American workers available. What that really means, of course, is that the H -1B visa holders take less pay and fewer benefits and cannot quit or move elsewhere without losing their visas. Bottom line. Bottom line. The hell with the rest of us.
So, BS, you’ve got Americans and legal immigrants being affected at many levels by the hiring of foreign workers, illegal or imported under H-1B. Whose side are you on? The American and legal immigrant workers or the new guys? Keep in mind that the stats now show that much of our job growth in the last six years has gone to “the new guys” and the number of people in this country who have given up on employment is at a record high.
Actually, at the lower wage levels, anyone could come in and undercut anyone else for a job. Trying to blame illegal immigrants for this phenomena is a straw man. For that matter workers from South Carolina where unemployment is high could migrate here and take less money.
H-1B visa holders are perfectly legal. I am not sure the moral issue is in the documentation. CGI federal, one of the main contractors on setting up the ACA had over half foreign workers. I don’t think for a minute that they were paid the same thing as the Americans. That’s a whole different discussion.
Somebody stood up before the people and swore that he would uphold the Constitution of the United States. Looks to me like he may have lied.
He is upholding it just fine as far as I am concerned. I guess its all a matter of perspective. I remember you all trashing Clinton all the time too. it just got old and tiresome.
Actually, if it wasn’t for a combo of liberal Dems drunk with thoughts of political power and disgusting Repubs who owe their souls to the US Chamber of Commerce, we probably wouldn’t have to make a decision about that gangbanger or the second fellow.
This is what I would do: apprehend the criminal – give him his day in court – if found guilty, apply the appropriate punishment and deport them upon completion of his punishment. In the second case, I would engage them – give them their day in court – apply the appropriate punishment for being undocumented – and upon completion of the punishment, I would lay out a course of action with a time limit that leads to deportation or legal residency.
I would not support any action that forces the deportation of American citizens (by virtue of birth place) that were here through no fault of their own and who were adjusted to life here. I also would not support a law that forced the separation of parents from their own children, except in the instance where it would be in the best interests of the child to be separated.
As far as losing jobs… I don’t get to riled up over that (I don’t work any more). It appears that many of those that you mention are standing around the local 7-11 waiting to work for total strangers at manual labor for $10 an hour. I’ve never seen any “typical” Americans waiting with them, so I suppose that there is no competition for those jobs , at least.
I also believe that many folks in the labor force here are pretty complacent about maintaining and upgrading their job skills to meet changing market demands. If you were happy about your life while flipping burgers at $11 an hour and a newly minted immigrant is willing to do the same work for $10 an hour, you better enroll in Burger U. and learn management skills.
That seems fair. I have never seen any “typical Americans” out there either and I live fairly close to a day worker site.
“Moreover, this person, who is here in the U.S. unlawfully, could be able to file an amended tax return for up to the last three tax years, possibly receiving upwards of $24,000 in tax credits.” – http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/amnesty-bonuses-tax-code-illegal-immigrants-receive-earned-income-tax-credit_841496.html
“President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.
“President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole” – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/12/obama-amnesty-creates-loophole-for-illegal-immigra/#ixzz3TEHuB6pn
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
That is a whole set of knee jerk reactions to the sky is falling mentality.
How many illegal immigrants do you know who even want to vote? I don’t consider my drivers license proof of citizenship because it isn’t.
Not is my social security number. I can be a legal resident, ineligible to vote, and still have both a drivers license and a social security number.
Re the Voter Registration – so do you mean to tell me that DMV will not know who has the proper paper work to register to vote and who does not?? What do they do with current green card holders who are eligible to drive and do not have the right to vote??
Fearmongering.
Re – H1B Holders – yes, there are some that want the program expanded Many Republicans (Issa for instance) and Democrats want the program expanded. They have been replacing high level IT people all over the place using this nod and wink (we are not replacing workers, we are outsourcing them BS).
Who says Obama is operating outside the law – co-equal government goes three ways. The creator of the law does not say that the enforcer is interpretating the law in the wrong way as Congress is doing now – it is up to SCOTUS to determine that. If Congress does not like the current interpretation, they could create clear legislation and put it on his desk, but alas, they do not seem to want to do anything other than feed their own re-election machines.
@Pat.Herve
The DMV isn’t the only way to register to vote. It’s quick an easy, I just went thru it on this site: http://action.nclr.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=9301
The only proof I had to enter that I was a citizen was to click ‘Yes’ when asked and then poof… registered.
I would suggest that perhaps the registry to vote is not rigorous enough. Were you in high school? they have all your credentials.
So why are you citing NCLR? Were you filling out fraudulent information?
Plenty of Hispanics are certainly eligible to vote. What’s wrong with that?
@Pat.Herve
I think the main argument is that Obama changed the law all by himself, which he has no authority to do. Not only did he change the law but he has threatened consequences for any federal employee who doesn’t enforce the changes to the law he made.
BTW, it’s not me saying he changed the law….
“I just took action to change the law.” – Obama, 11/25/2014
Now where did you see that direct quote?
The debate over legalizing illegal immigrants was “a primary cause” of last summer’s surge of Central Americans jumping the U.S.-Mexico border, the Government Accountability Office reported Friday. Children were also pulled to the U.S. by ties to family already living here and by the belief that even if they crossed illegally, they would be given citizenship, the GAO said after surveying State Department, Homeland Security Department and U.S. Agency for International Development workers in each of the three countries.
About 60,000 illegal immigrant children from Mexico and the three key Central American countries, traveling without their parents, crossed into the U.S. in fiscal year 2014, with 10,000 coming in May and another 10,000 in June alone. Tens of thousands more family units — usually mothers with children — also came across, though they have gotten less attention than the unaccompanied minors.
Border Patrol agents also said most of the children they interviewed believed they could earn tentative status in the U.S. thanks to lax enforcement of immigration laws, and the GAO study backs that up. Even if the children weren’t eligible for asylum or legal status when they arrived, deportations could take years, giving the youths a chance to disappear into the shadows along with the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S
Again, its all about the incentives and those who encourage the continuation and expansion of those incentives. Discounting the risks these people bring with them, not knowing who they are is irresponsbile.
I don’t know where you are getting your information, Blue. Some of those border patrol groups are very partisan. In the first place, Mexican children were not let in to the USA as unaccompanied minors because Mexico is continuous to the United States. So scratch that one off the list of bullsh!t.
The border patrol has idea why kids came. More bullsh!t. You have assigned faulty cause and effect.
Can anyone here that agrees with the Presidents actions tell me what law gives him approval to provide illegal aliens social security numbers?
Can you tell me what law prevents them from getting social security numbers? How about TIN number?
Before 9/11 things were different. Additionally, there are many people who came here on a temporary protective visa and who just never went home. They had the numbers they needed.
@Pat.Herve
Actually, the courts said he was “making” law, not interpreting…thus that injunction.
It hasn’t been decided yet either.
@Cargosquid
And it is up to Judicial Branch to make that determination. There have been plenty of laws that go to SCOTUS to be decided. Congress has the power to fix it by creating a new law that represents its wishes – but alas, Congress has not (under R and D leadership) decided that Immigration is something that it needs to deal with.
@Jackson Bills
the fear mongering of – now that they can get a license they can be registered to vote is just that – fear mongering. DMV is ALREADY dealing with citizen and non citizen individuals. It is not a new problem.
@Moon-howler
Central America: Information on Migration of Unaccompanied Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-362
GAO-15-362: Published: Feb 27, 2015. Publicly Released: Feb 27, 2015.
Blue: I don’t think anyone here said that undocumented aliens were coming here for no reason what-so-ever. What is your point?
@blue
You just negated your own argument. The link you left talked about hunger, crime, economic conditions. No one argues with that. It also states kids from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatamala.
Wow, answering a question with a question… A question is not an answer.
Fear mongering? OooooKaaaay…. Just pointing out the obvious. If you have a SSN and a drivers license then there is nothing preventing you from registering to vote, nothing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6yuiuhgTtx8
Try the 2:25 mark or so…
Nothing is wrong with Hispanics voting, I encourage everyone who is eligible to vote to vote. I picked the NCLR (National Council of ‘The Race’… hmmm) because of who they are. Just one click and if you have an SSN your registered to vote. Nothing else is needed. If your undocumented no worries, you can get your voter registration easy peasy.
Just proving a point here Moon, if you read the link I posted earlier you would know there is nothing preventing undocumented immigrant from registering to vote, that was proven in sworn testimony to congress as well as my own test. My voter registration card will show up at my house in 2 to 3 weeks.