Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Obama Refuses to Deport Young Illegals for Their Parents' Mistakes - What do you think of this bold move?

Posted by   + Show Post

Obama Refuses to Deport Young Illegals for Their Parents' Mistakes

Posted by Jeanne Sager on June 15, 2012

ImmigrationPresident Barack Obama's announcement today that his administration will no longer deport the majority of young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children has already been dragged into the political arena and it's being smacked around by Republicans. But let's be real. This move goes beyond politics. Protecting young immigrants is a win for American families: all of them.

What came out of the White House today isn't about politics. It's about protecting children from the burden of being punished for actions their parents committed. We live in a country where kids are supposed to be protected, doted on, cared for, but until today, kids were being told that something that happened to them when they were helpless infants was their fault.

But not anymore.

From here on out, children brought to America by their parents under shady circumstance will be treated as just that: children. Children can't enter into contracts in the United States. They can't be charged with adult crimes. And as long as they meet certain criteria, they can't be deported for simply doing what their parents asked.

As Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told The Stir during a conference call with several members of the press today, "They don't know any other country ... they want to work and contribute to our social security. They want to serve in our military ... want to give back to this country that gave them so much."

How can you argue with that?

I can't.

Oh come on. Put kids in any other situation, and expect them to bear the burden of their parents' mistakes, and people would be screaming from the rooftops.

Picture it. A mom takes her infant daughter along on a murder. Do we punish the child as an "accessory to murder?" Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

OK, but the kid didn't "do" the crime? Here's one: say mom leaves the keys in the ignition of the car. Toddler climbs in, puts the car in reverse, and slams into another vehicle, killing the driver. Do you charge the kid? Again, no.

So why are there Americans who would actually support taking a young person and shipping them off to another country because they are an "illegal" immigrant? They might be here illegally, but they've had as little control over that as that infant carted to the murder scene and as little knowledge of the law as that toddler who maneuvered the car into an accident.

If we protect these kids, it sends a message to the world that all children in America are precious, no matter who their parents are.

What do you think of the Obama administration's bold move?

by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Replies (41-50):
rfurlongg
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Not all 800,000 would be eligible to vote. But I see your point.

Quoting LoriKeet:

If they're old enough to vote, I can see why!  What Democrat in their right mind would deport 800,000 potential votes?! :o)

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LoriKeet
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:21 PM
2 moms liked this

Additionally, according to Napolitano, the "requirements" for these illegal children to be able to stay in this country are as follows:


  • Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
  • Be no older than 30,
  • Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
  • Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
  • Have a clean criminal record.

The last two bullet points are concerning to me.  How exactly DOES and ILLEGAL prove how long they've been in the country and that they haven't committed ANY crime (I guess being ILLEGAL isn't counted)!  What if a 29 year old illegal, who just came over the border yesterday, says they've been in this country since before turning 16, but they dropped out of school.  HOW can that be proven?!  I guess this administration is going with the ironic "honesty" route?! (smacks forehead)


Sisteract
by Whoopie on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM
1 mom liked this

Agree with the decisions.

I doubt many would like to pay for the sins, crimes and missteps of their parents or be judged on such.

Hypocrites.

LoriKeet
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM
2 moms liked this

Just an FYI...

Politics trump all other factors that a responsible president would consider, such as the wisdom of dumping nearly a million new job seekers onto the market to compete for jobs with America's 26 million unemployed at a time of sky-high unemployment.

It also comes as a flip-flop. Obama has told his supporters in the past that he couldn't take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned.

But it's the time frame that really gives the game away: The relief from deportation orders will be meted out in two-year increments, timed precisely with each election cycle. That way, Democrats can tell the Latino lobby to either mobilize the vote for them — or the amnesty goodies end.

http://news.investors.com/article/615091/201206151911/obama-amnesty-manuever-panders-to-illegal-aliens-for-votes.htm

Quoting rfurlongg:

Not all 800,000 would be eligible to vote. But I see your point.

Quoting LoriKeet:

If they're old enough to vote, I can see why!  What Democrat in their right mind would deport 800,000 potential votes?! :o)


rfurlongg
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM
1 mom liked this
If they were brought here under the age of 16, the crime is their parents not theirs. They are not criminals. Proving residency should be easy with school papers, if they are drop outs they will have to find another way. It won't be easy as I suspect they will be on high alert for fraud.

As far as criminal record, IF they have been arrested and charged, there will be a paper trail.

TX and CA already do this. Bush W suggested an even more encompassing and lenient amnesty. This is a baby step in addressing the issue. I am glad someone has finally done something about it. In the decade plus since W presented a comprehensive immigrantion plan, nothing but complaining has been done by those that oppose immigration reform.


Quoting LoriKeet:

Additionally, according to Napolitano, the "requirements" for these illegal children to be able to stay in this country are as follows:


  • Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
  • Be no older than 30,
  • Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
  • Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
  • Have a clean criminal record.

The last two bullet points are concerning to me.  How exactly DOES and ILLEGAL prove how long they've been in the country and that they haven't committed ANY crime (I guess being ILLEGAL isn't counted)!  What if a 29 year old illegal, who just came over the border yesterday, says they've been in this country since before turning 16, but they dropped out of school.  HOW can that be proven?!  I guess this administration is going with the ironic "honesty" route?! (smacks forehead)


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LoriKeet
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM
2 moms liked this

Again how does he get around this little technicality...the same way he did with ObamaCare?!  This president clearly thinks he is above the law!  I fail to see what's so "awesome" about that!

"Obama has told his supporters in the past that he couldn't take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned."

(^^^ From the link above)


Quoting rfurlongg:

If they were brought here under the age of 16, the crime is their parents not theirs. They are not criminals. Proving residency should be easy with school papers, if they are drop outs they will have to find another way. It won't be easy as I suspect they will be on high alert for fraud.

As far as criminal record, IF they have been arrested and charged, there will be a paper trail.

TX and CA already do this. Bush W suggested an even more encompassing and lenient amnesty. This is a baby step in addressing the issue. I am glad someone has finally done something about it. In the decade plus since W presented a comprehensive immigrantion plan, nothing but complaining has been done by those that oppose immigration reform.


Quoting LoriKeet:

Additionally, according to Napolitano, the "requirements" for these illegal children to be able to stay in this country are as follows:


  • Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
  • Be no older than 30,
  • Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
  • Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
  • Have a clean criminal record.

The last two bullet points are concerning to me.  How exactly DOES and ILLEGAL prove how long they've been in the country and that they haven't committed ANY crime (I guess being ILLEGAL isn't counted)!  What if a 29 year old illegal, who just came over the border yesterday, says they've been in this country since before turning 16, but they dropped out of school.  HOW can that be proven?!  I guess this administration is going with the ironic "honesty" route?! (smacks forehead)



rfurlongg
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM
I thought immigrantion amnesty included citizenship. It is my understanding that O current step includes work papers, but no fast track to citizenship.

Quoting LoriKeet:

Just an FYI...

Politics trump all other factors that a responsible president would
consider, such as the wisdom of dumping nearly a million new job seekers
onto the market to compete for jobs with America's 26 million
unemployed at a time of sky-high unemployment.

It also comes as a flip-flop. Obama has told his supporters in the
past that he couldn't take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality
and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned.



But it's the time frame that really gives the game away: The relief
from deportation orders will be meted out in two-year increments, timed
precisely with each election cycle.
That way, Democrats can tell the
Latino lobby to either mobilize the vote for them — or the amnesty
goodies end.


http://news.investors.com/article/615091/201206151911/obama-amnesty-manuever-panders-to-illegal-aliens-for-votes.htm


Quoting rfurlongg:

Not all 800,000 would be eligible to vote. But I see your point.



Quoting LoriKeet:

If they're old enough to vote, I can see why!  What Democrat in their right mind would deport 800,000 potential votes?! :o)


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LoriKeet
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:40 PM
1 mom liked this

Then why would he be concerned over the LEGALLITY and USURPTION of Congress?!  I mean if it's all on the up and up, why not pass the law in the traditional manner...through CONGRESSIONAL VOTE?!

Quoting rfurlongg:

I thought immigrantion amnesty included citizenship. It is my understanding that O current step includes work papers, but no fast track to citizenship.

Quoting LoriKeet:

Just an FYI...

Politics trump all other factors that a responsible president would
consider, such as the wisdom of dumping nearly a million new job seekers
onto the market to compete for jobs with America's 26 million
unemployed at a time of sky-high unemployment.

It also comes as a flip-flop. Obama has told his supporters in the
past that he couldn't take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality
and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned.



But it's the time frame that really gives the game away: The relief
from deportation orders will be meted out in two-year increments, timed
precisely with each election cycle.
That way, Democrats can tell the
Latino lobby to either mobilize the vote for them — or the amnesty
goodies end.


http://news.investors.com/article/615091/201206151911/obama-amnesty-manuever-panders-to-illegal-aliens-for-votes.htm


Quoting rfurlongg:

Not all 800,000 would be eligible to vote. But I see your point.



Quoting LoriKeet:

If they're old enough to vote, I can see why!  What Democrat in their right mind would deport 800,000 potential votes?! :o)



rfurlongg
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM
*On mobile so I cannot trim the tree, sorry*

Perhaps if the yahoos in congress had suggested alternatives sometime in the past 10+ yrs, he would not have had to do something.

I have no doubt the legality will be challenged. I watch closely. I also hope it.stands.
Quoting LoriKeet:

Again how does he get around this little technicality...the same way he did with ObamaCare?!  This president clearly thinks he is above the law!  I fail to see what's so "awesome" about that!

"Obama has told his supporters in the
past that he couldn't take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality
and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned."

(^^^ From the link above)


Quoting rfurlongg:

If they were brought here under the age of 16, the crime is their parents not theirs. They are not criminals. Proving residency should be easy with school papers, if they are drop outs they will have to find another way. It won't be easy as I suspect they will be on high alert for fraud.



As far as criminal record, IF they have been arrested and charged, there will be a paper trail.



TX and CA already do this. Bush W suggested an even more encompassing and lenient amnesty. This is a baby step in addressing the issue. I am glad someone has finally done something about it. In the decade plus since W presented a comprehensive immigrantion plan, nothing but complaining has been done by those that oppose immigration reform.






Quoting LoriKeet:

Additionally, according to Napolitano, the "requirements" for these illegal children to be able to stay in this country are as follows:


  • Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
  • Be no older than 30,
  • Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
  • Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
  • Have a clean criminal record.

The last two bullet points are concerning to me.  How exactly DOES and ILLEGAL prove how long they've been in the country and that they haven't committed ANY crime (I guess being ILLEGAL isn't counted)!  What if a 29 year old illegal, who just came over the border yesterday, says they've been in this country since before turning 16, but they dropped out of school.  HOW can that be proven?!  I guess this administration is going with the ironic "honesty" route?! (smacks forehead)



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LoriKeet
by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Why didn't he get the Congressional "yahoos" he had at his disposal to pass some amnesty type bill when he had complete control over both chambers his first two years in office?!

Quoting rfurlongg:

*On mobile so I cannot trim the tree, sorry*

Perhaps if the yahoos in congress had suggested alternatives sometime in the past 10+ yrs, he would not have to do something.

I have no doubt the legality will be challenged. I watch closely. I also hope it.stands.


Quoting LoriKeet:

Again how does he get around this little technicality...the same way he did with ObamaCare?!  This president clearly thinks he is above the law!  I fail to see what's so "awesome" about that!

"Obama has told his supporters in the
past that he couldn't take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality
and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned."

(^^^ From the link above)


Quoting rfurlongg:

If they were brought here under the age of 16, the crime is their parents not theirs. They are not criminals. Proving residency should be easy with school papers, if they are drop outs they will have to find another way. It won't be easy as I suspect they will be on high alert for fraud.



As far as criminal record, IF they have been arrested and charged, there will be a paper trail.



TX and CA already do this. Bush W suggested an even more encompassing and lenient amnesty. This is a baby step in addressing the issue. I am glad someone has finally done something about it. In the decade plus since W presented a comprehensive immigrantion plan, nothing but complaining has been done by those that oppose immigration reform.




Quoting LoriKeet:

Additionally, according to Napolitano, the "requirements" for these illegal children to be able to stay in this country are as follows:


  • Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
  • Be no older than 30,
  • Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
  • Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
  • Have a clean criminal record.

The last two bullet points are concerning to me.  How exactly DOES and ILLEGAL prove how long they've been in the country and that they haven't committed ANY crime (I guess being ILLEGAL isn't counted)!  What if a 29 year old illegal, who just came over the border yesterday, says they've been in this country since before turning 16, but they dropped out of school.  HOW can that be proven?!  I guess this administration is going with the ironic "honesty" route?! (smacks forehead)




Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN