U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2011, 08:40 AM
 
10,021 posts, read 5,756,092 times
Reputation: 6886

Advertisements

Logic does not rule on this thread.

No matter what, these cases are reviewed individually. "Just deport them" is a meaningless statement. Do you just start rounding up anyone who looks Mexican? Just grab them off the street? Have special buses patrolling the streets? Round up Americans and Mexicans, ship them off to Mexico, and let them sort it out?

How is the government to 'protect our borders' without employees to do the work? You can't have it both ways: the government 'is not in the business of creating jobs' and 'government must protect our borders and deport those who are here illegally'.

By the by: the article said nothing about 'dropping' deportation proceedings. It is about making priorities.

I shall explain: in my office we get thousands of requests for hearings (disability). We have some 40 people staffing the office. Each person gets a hearing. We cannot hold all hearings at once. We must have a schedule. First in, first out, as a general rule.

However, we usually give 'priority' to those people whose condition had markedly worsened, or, sometimes, if they are about to lose their homes due to no money. They jump to the head of the line (I will add that even if a person is about to lose their home, the judge may well find them 'not disabled', hence the home is lost).

Does that mean that we simply dismiss all other cases because we give priority to others? Of course not.

Same thing here concerning the illegals: limited personnel, limited courts, limited money. All cases must be reviewed individually. Who to give priority to? I agree with Obama: give priority to those who have a history of violence, drug usage/dealing, etc. Get them out of the country first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2011, 08:47 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,387,732 times
Reputation: 2345
This is blanket amnesty for all illegals under eighteen and their parents. Obama, who sends his own kids to public schools, has basically opened our schools to the world's foreigners. Stick your brat in our public schools long enough and they can now claim citizenship eventually.

Thanks a lot president panderer.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 08:58 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,761,562 times
Reputation: 22163
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Logic does not rule on this thread.

No matter what, these cases are reviewed individually. "Just deport them" is a meaningless statement. Do you just start rounding up anyone who looks Mexican? Just grab them off the street? Have special buses patrolling the streets? Round up Americans and Mexicans, ship them off to Mexico, and let them sort it out?

How is the government to 'protect our borders' without employees to do the work? You can't have it both ways: the government 'is not in the business of creating jobs' and 'government must protect our borders and deport those who are here illegally'.

By the by: the article said nothing about 'dropping' deportation proceedings. It is about making priorities.

I shall explain: in my office we get thousands of requests for hearings (disability). We have some 40 people staffing the office. Each person gets a hearing. We cannot hold all hearings at once. We must have a schedule. First in, first out, as a general rule.

However, we usually give 'priority' to those people whose condition had markedly worsened, or, sometimes, if they are about to lose their homes due to no money. They jump to the head of the line (I will add that even if a person is about to lose their home, the judge may well find them 'not disabled', hence the home is lost).

Does that mean that we simply dismiss all other cases because we give priority to others? Of course not.

Same thing here concerning the illegals: limited personnel, limited courts, limited money. All cases must be reviewed individually. Who to give priority to? I agree with Obama: give priority to those who have a history of violence, drug usage/dealing, etc. Get them out of the country first.
For one, it shouldn't take much of a hearing to decide someone who is here illegally should be deported.

They can easily deport millions of the illegals. Deport them when they show up at the welfare office to renew their food stamp cards, those are the most useless illegals, the true parasites.

And those using stolen social security numbers, committing felony document fraud don't need much of a hearing, the crime of felony document fraud should get them a quick boot out of the country. They can do workplace checks for legitimate social security numbers, reviewing the books for unpaid social security taxes and so on.

Now the illegal without stolen documents, making out raking leaves, not using any welfare handouts can be a low priority -- don't hunt them down or try to round them up as long as they lay low but as soon as they make their presence known, for example found driving without a license or insurance or involved in a bar fight, shoplifting - then out they go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,384 posts, read 4,231,934 times
Reputation: 2273
Default Logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Logic does not rule on this thread.

No matter what, these cases are reviewed individually. "Just deport them" is a meaningless statement. Do you just start rounding up anyone who looks Mexican? Just grab them off the street? Have special buses patrolling the streets? Round up Americans and Mexicans, ship them off to Mexico, and let them sort it out?

How is the government to 'protect our borders' without employees to do the work? You can't have it both ways: the government 'is not in the business of creating jobs' and 'government must protect our borders and deport those who are here illegally'.

By the by: the article said nothing about 'dropping' deportation proceedings. It is about making priorities.

I shall explain: in my office we get thousands of requests for hearings (disability). We have some 40 people staffing the office. Each person gets a hearing. We cannot hold all hearings at once. We must have a schedule. First in, first out, as a general rule.

However, we usually give 'priority' to those people whose condition had markedly worsened, or, sometimes, if they are about to lose their homes due to no money. They jump to the head of the line (I will add that even if a person is about to lose their home, the judge may well find them 'not disabled', hence the home is lost).

Does that mean that we simply dismiss all other cases because we give priority to others? Of course not.

Same thing here concerning the illegals: limited personnel, limited courts, limited money. All cases must be reviewed individually. Who to give priority to? I agree with Obama: give priority to those who have a history of violence, drug usage/dealing, etc. Get them out of the country first.
Actually, If someone is arrested for a crime, and it's determined that they are here illegally, (fairly easy to do, especially if they have been arrested before and the determination of being here illegally is already documented, then why should we not immediately deport them?

If someone is here and their visa is expired, they are here illegally, what is to review?

The bottom line, unless they are here legally, then they are out of here. If there is a question as to their legality, then yes a review is warranted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 09:02 AM
 
1,574 posts, read 790,233 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
1. What's to review? What part of ILLEGAL is difficult to understand? "Your Honor, I only stole a little bit from the store", "Your honor, I only murdered a couple of people, I only drove to work without a license, it's not as if I went out partying, I only drank a few beers before driving, etc etc etc". What good is having a law, if it's not going to be enforced equally amongst all people who break it?
You realize all sorts of laws are basically non-enforced or only enforced when throwing the book at someone who did a bunch of other stuff as well, right? You're not opposed to the concept of selective enforcement, you're just pretending like you are because you finally ran into a law you want rabidly enforced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 09:16 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,158,884 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Logic does not rule on this thread.

No matter what, these cases are reviewed individually. "Just deport them" is a meaningless statement. Do you just start rounding up anyone who looks Mexican? Just grab them off the street? Have special buses patrolling the streets? Round up Americans and Mexicans, ship them off to Mexico, and let them sort it out?

How is the government to 'protect our borders' without employees to do the work? You can't have it both ways: the government 'is not in the business of creating jobs' and 'government must protect our borders and deport those who are here illegally'.

By the by: the article said nothing about 'dropping' deportation proceedings. It is about making priorities.

I shall explain: in my office we get thousands of requests for hearings (disability). We have some 40 people staffing the office. Each person gets a hearing. We cannot hold all hearings at once. We must have a schedule. First in, first out, as a general rule.

However, we usually give 'priority' to those people whose condition had markedly worsened, or, sometimes, if they are about to lose their homes due to no money. They jump to the head of the line (I will add that even if a person is about to lose their home, the judge may well find them 'not disabled', hence the home is lost).

Does that mean that we simply dismiss all other cases because we give priority to others? Of course not.

Same thing here concerning the illegals: limited personnel, limited courts, limited money. All cases must be reviewed individually. Who to give priority to? I agree with Obama: give priority to those who have a history of violence, drug usage/dealing, etc. Get them out of the country first.
What are you talking about? These 300,000 illegal aliens have already been caught. So what is this "rounding up" about? Why the refererence to "those who look Mexican"? No one is rounded up for just looking Mexican. Stop the nonsense!

Processing legal papers and having a judicial court system is a necessity. Just like having LE individuals is a necessity. If we have to hire more people to keep our country safe and to convict, detain and/or deport illegal aliens then so be it. What's the alternative...to allow criminals and illegal aliens to run amok in our country?

I would agree that we need to focus most of our efforts on criminal aliens but that doesn't mean with additional personnel that we can't do both at once. The process just needs speeding up rather than allowing illegal aliens years and years of appeals. At any rate we shouldn't be allowing these 300,000 to remain in this country with work permits.

Yes, many of these 300,000 cases will be "dismissed". From the article:

"Thursday's announcement goes beyond the memo by establishing a process to flag and exempt certain illegal immigrants from deportation. A team of attorneys and officials will be tasked with reviewing the more than 300,000 cases in the system".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 03:15 PM
 
387 posts, read 511,411 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
Actually, If someone is arrested for a crime, and it's determined that they are here illegally, (fairly easy to do, especially if they have been arrested before and the determination of being here illegally is already documented, then why should we not immediately deport them?

If someone is here and their visa is expired, they are here illegally, what is to review?

The bottom line, unless they are here legally, then they are out of here. If there is a question as to their legality, then yes a review is warranted.
It would be a good idea for you to study Immigration Law even if you are illegal you can apply for relief from Immigration Court depending on the circumstances
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top