Obama On Immigration Reform: 'Let's Go Get It Done'

You are aware being an illegal immigrant isn't a crime?

 

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html

 

What part of this promise doesn't Liberals understand" Or doesn't promises mean anything to you? Obviously not as you have no problem with Obama not keeping his promise.

"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

 

First, a message to the forum posters:

Personal attacks all over the place. This guy does nothing but personal attack. He has little or no substance on the topic, and just attacks the posters he disagrees with. In this post (# 624), is he talking about the TOPIC or another poster ?

Answer: He uses the word "you" (or derivative of it) no less than 17 times. A new forum record (probably not, since all his posts are like that) Pheeeeww! (high=pitched whistle)

Now as for the post itself. Just another ludicrous pile of nonsense.

1. What in blazes are you talking about ? "native american "nation" ? Huh ?

2. I read the conclusions to the CIS report, 2 years ago. I accepted its conclusions then, and I still do now.

3. Here's another example of strange conclusions we're hearing here. "a response to taxcutter." So ? "a response to marine1". So ? Again. The statement you made was > "I notice you never ever use any sources to back up any of your claims." "ANY of your claims" could be any of my claims, which includes claims to taxcutter, to marine 1, or ANY other poster, in ANY thread, in ANY forum. My inability to recognize context ? Not hardly. Not when you never put it in any context in the first place, I have no obligation to recognize some context that is only buzzing around in your head, and not on the page of the thread. If you want to hold someone accountable for something particular (like claims made only to you), you MUST specify that, BUT you didn't. Right Jonsa ? Right ? Right ? Well, you know that's right, and even if you come back here trying to wiggle-spin your way out of this too, like all your posts, no matter. The readers can plainly see your obvious deceit, and lack of credibility.

4. So now you say >> "I am more than willing to amend the statement and claim you rarely ever provide a source for your unsubstantiated opinions." Well guess what, Oh overpresumtuous one. This statement is wrong too. Again you haven't specified that you mean just in this thread, and only discussion of you and me. The statement is clearly one that applies to ALL my opinions stated ANYWHERE in this forum over the past 3 years, and in other forums going back to 2004, and as such, is as wrong as it could be, since I often do provide sources and links, such as one involving the opinions of many that Islam is not a religion, and in a single post, very recently, I listed 10 links.

5. So now you say >> "Part of being credible is being trusted. And part of being trusted is a recognition that when one makes a definitive error, it is admitted and corrected." Well, since instead of admitting your errors, this forum has had to rely on ME to point them out here in this post, so by your own definition, here stated, it appears you can't be trusted. If the shoe fits, wear it.

6. "Factual debuking" ? I haven't seen a single fact come from you in this thread, nor have I seen any debunking from you about anything I've said (or what anyone else has said for that matter) You're just a rabid pretender, that's all. I have not seen you show that anything I've said is a factual error. Where would THAT come from ? I said Mexico has had $25 Billion/year in remittances from the USA, FACT, not opinion. I said remittances from the USA, is Mexico's second largest source of income, second only to their oil exports. FACT, not opinion.
I said that the Obama administration enacted 409,849 deportations in 2012. FACT, not opinion. I said self-deportation was around long before Romney ran for president. FACT, not opinion. I said we import oil from Canada (and they happen to be our #1 supplier. FACT, not opinion) I said if you pour 11 million people into your country, your crime is going to increase (and it does). FACT, not opinion. I said "In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 1 used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children." FACT, not opinion.

And your posts ? They are noted by other posters here as qualifying as legend in their own minds (post # 373), and >> "You have yet to present facts, you only have assertion." (post # 374), and >> "So now you can't even search a phrase or a quote?" (Post # 375),

The interesting thing about your posts, is that you contest even obvious truths (like the one about crime) Why ? You really think it's not true ? Of course not. You just a harasser, and your posts are pure harassment, and I reported you 3 times, but I could have reported you 300 times. I wonder why any of us are even talking to you, when we all know you are just harassing and BSing.

 

Although I am fundamentally on your side in this thread, Marine1, and I have been opposed to Krane56 quite often, I have to step in here momentarily to clarify something. You are entirely right that Section 1325 of Title 8 has EWI a crime, punishable by imprisonment. But Krane56 was only talking about being here, not entering. I believe he might be right that just "being an illegal immigrant isn't a crime", while you are right that they can be prosecuted IF it can be shown that they entered illegally. Some illegals may have overstayed their visas. I don't think that is a crime (YET)

 

Where would one expect to find statements like > Illegal alien migration into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually ? On the website of La Raza, SEIU, or some other immigrationist site ?

 

You really should read his report vs espousing what you think he means.

Cherry picking? He clearly says they decrease GDP, no semantics needed, no cherry picking needed, no interpretation needed.

Is that like you dismissing the fact that illegals cost GDP?

Believing they benefit the economy is not the same as what you have claimed, "they benefit overall". Whom they benefit are the business that hire them and themselves. As to the economy benefiting, simply purchasing a product benefits the economy, which is what the economists are stating.

Actually I am. From Hansons report

Try reading the Hanson report prior to commenting.

Yet you admit to providing a link to the Pro-Con Discussion. You did not provide a link to the WSJ questionnaire. Its no big deal, I know how to research quite well. I continue to insist Hansons exact claim and how he determined it without being dismissive of his findings. I dismiss his opinion.

I was simply attempting to have you do much better research of the claims you make and of the people you use, such as Adam Davidson.

Believing in something is not the same as proving something, many scientists believed the earth was flat, others believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Nothing is lost on me, I simply believe in using correct words and facts vs opinion based on belief. Belief can be shown to be incorrect with evidence, thus changing belief all together.

I thought you were open to learning, instead you choose to argue something that isn't factual. Its your use of words that do you in, EXAMPLE: "Illegals benefit the economy" is what these economists are simply claiming, you are claiming that economists claim "illegals benefit the economy overall". Can you spot the word you add that creates the fallacy you keep espousing?

No, the effect is a net negative. PERIOD Hanson says illegals actually cost -.1% of GDP, then based on their wages, etc, they create a .03% increase. If you take the -.1% and subtract the +.03% you get the -.07% he claims they decrease GDP. Read the report as you have been arguing handicapped from not having done so.

The argument is between macro and micro economics. It really depends on what method you use to determine GDP, certainly wages and salaries could be one way, yet that would equate to GDP(i) as in the (i)ncome approach, which has measurement errors and does not equal GDP. But if we use your dismissive claims then its close enough to be a wash, the errors don't matter.

It is assumed that illegals lower wages, therefor it is assumed costs of goods and services that use illegals are also lowered.

It has yet to be proven that illegals actually lower wages. Many make much more than minimum wage, even field workers are paid more than Federal minimum wage, hell some make as much as $20+ per hour working in the fields.

 

Lets clarify this down further, I will use only your last sentence. Over-staying your visa is an infraction (equivalent to jay walking or a speeding ticket), not a crime. Over-staying your visa does not make one illegal, it makes them out-of-status, they only become illegal if they have a letter of deportation against them. Being out-of-status allows for them to apply to adjust or change status and renew or change their original visa.

Being caught within the US illegally is not a crime, however it can become one if charged with EWI. Most are simply deported without being charged the first time.

 

I think we got off the main subject some. I think the author of this thread is saying Obama wants to get these illegals citizenship and wants to hurry up and get it a bill passed. That is wrong. If you came here illegally you don't deserve citizenship. We were promised we would never do it again and we should hold them to it. I don't have much respect to those that want to break that promise.

 

You are the one that made it personal. You called me a liar and a racist and inferred that I was a criminal. You have been as guilty as myself in making it personal as well as about the issues. so please try not to hurt yourself as you fall off your high horse.

this came from your ridiculous assertion that a nation cannot be multilingual. You used a single part of the definition to be found in the websters college dictionary.
I used the merriam webster dictionary which is a superset of the webster dictionary for college kids and posted that definition which completely and totally debunked your original position.
In this case, I mistakently thought you were using the merriam webster dictionary (the grown up version of the college one) where the definition that approximated the one you used was in reference to an native indian nation, and I thought that you had changed the word "or" with "and".
Even tho I was mistaken of the specific, it turns out I was not mistaken with your disengenousness wrt attempting to validate your ridiculous assertion.

If you agree with that report, I find it rather peculiar you are arguing so vociferously against many of its conclusions.

I can easily see how you would misconstrue my statement but I was talking about our interaction. You really think I would notice your behaviour in your posts with anyone else? And you call me egotistical. righto.

I cannot be held accountable for another posters lack of contextual understanding, when displayed not in a single instance, but with almost deliberate frequency.

I repeat, what a marvellously egocentric perspective.
Until this thread I recall one other thread interaction with you a year and some 5000 posts ago. How you could possibly think I would know how you behave in other threads and with other posters is beyond me.

Hello McFly?????? I can't believe I just read that. the illogic is breathtaking.

If an error is not pointed out, then how does one know they made an error?
I ALWAYS admit to my mistakes and when I am proven factually wrong. I do not have false pride in this area since I view all of my mistakes and factual errors as opportunities to learn.

Can you say the same thing? Hardly given the numerous times you have ignored my pointing out your mistakes, errors and ridiculous assertions. For instance even after providing you with a detailed definition of nation you insisted that a nation cannot be multi-lingual, ignoring plain fact.

But just to be clear since you have requested I spell things out, a difference of opinion (substantiated or not, informed or not) is NOT an mistake nor factual error.

And I didn't dispute any of those factual statements at any time. As for me posting facts that you haven't seen, given your responses I am not at all suprised you haven't been able discern facts that do not support your own opinions when they are presented to you.

So far in this little rant fest you've made a few mistakes, not that you'd ever notice or admit to them.

Not in any of the posts you responded to me with.

Look harder I'm sure you can find a few more facts that you missed in the above. AND you will not find me refuting or debunking any of those facts in any post.

How can a post be possessed of a mind or do you mean other poster's minds? How tragically lacking in self confidence that you must use other posters snarky replies and repartee as some sort of validation of your opinion of me.

I see you have a great deal of trouble telling the difference between contesting actual facts and putting those facts in appropriate context.

thank you for reporting me. I am sure it made you feel so much better. I rarely report anyone and haven't reported you even when you called me a liar and racist. do you have any conception as to why that is?

Funny how you can express your opinions, no matter how odious and yet you think I am harrassing you when I don't share them and strongly object to many of them.

As a fellow sexagenerian, I should think you would be sufficiently self aware to recognize that frustration comes from within.

I think we have exhausted the back and forth "personal" debate. You have your opinion of the subject of immigration (legal or otherwise) and I have mine. You have your opinion of me and I have mine of you. We are certainly not going to agree at this stage and I very much doubt either of us would care to sit down for a beer.

so hasta la vista.

But by all means feel free to continue to express your frustrations with me. I shall dutifully ignore it from here on out.

 

If that is correct, it too is a problem. Semantics? Can you not be arrested and deported for being in the USA unlawfully? I understand this is rarely happening, but the lawfulness of it is that to which I am referring.

EDIT: Interesting: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gration-house-illegal-presence-crime/2420387/ Entering illegally was already a Federal Crime. Coming in and over-staying your legality was not in and of itself. Reviewing to see if the referenced law was ever passed.

Yes, this is surprising to me. Thank you for pointing out this problem. It is the Federal government shirking a central duty to protect this nation.

EDIT 2: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/13/boehner-house-wont-negotiate-senate-immigration/ Phew.

 

As previously stated, I never infer, insinuate, or imply anything. I observed and reported you being a liar (many times) and a racist. I see that as just being a responsible poster.

I already debunked your false claim of having debunked my definition (which stands solid, 100%). How absurd of you to try to a discredit the idea of language being at the base of what makes a nation, and there it was, the word language in YOUR definitiotn, as well as mine. I didn't even have to "debunk" you. You did it to yourself.

Once again in case anyone missed it, let's be clear on the definition of a NATION >> "a stable, historically developed community of people, with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture and language in common."
(Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4the ed.) And how naive to even try to suggest that a nation is anything other than a common language group, with the other attributes mentioned in the definition. Yes, we get a lot of spin around here, but we let it just roll off off us, like raindrops.

I see nothing "peculiar". The CIS report primarily states facts, which I agree with, and serve to illustrate the harms of immigration, as I stated, such as the large degree of tax $$ being taken away from the American people , by being given to immigrants. They say it. I say it.

I haven't misconstrued a darn thing. In this world, if you say something, you are held accountable for what your say, and I held you accountable. If you misstate what you say, because you have trouble communicating, well, not my problem. I have no thought of what you notice about my behavior, I simply hold you accountable for what you say. If you don't want to have that happen, you might avoid posting in computer forums.

I understand what I see a poster write. I have no obligation or need to understand some context you never specified. Again, your problem, not mine.

No need to contemplate on it, because you don't think that I think you would know how I behave in other threads, and with other posters. That's just another example of your habitual pretense here. Of course I don't know how you would think, nor do I care. simple fact is you need to learn how to use the words of the English language better. In this thread alone, you muffed up repeatedly. In this case, you said "...you rarely ever provide a source...".. Leaving that unspecified, it remains a general statement that applies to ALL my statements made anywhere, anytime, in any manner. Perhaps you could get a book on English usage, or take a correspondence course. In any event, not my problem.

Nothing illogical. YOU said "...when one makes a definitive error, it is admitted and corrected." And one knows they made an error, just by coming to realize it. One need have have everything "pointed out". You do NOT "always" admit to your mistakes, and I would say the true situation is more like rarely or never. And NO, HA HA, I haven't ignored your ALLEGED pointing out of mistakes of mine. I have CORRECTED your points and refuted them, which you conveniently pretend hasn't happened (which I notice you doing that with other posters here as well) And the "detailed definition of a nation" you provided did not refute my definition one iota, and served to confirm my definition (although that was never necessary) And of course, a place that is mulitilingual, cannot be a nation, since a nation is a community with A distinctive language and culture (note the singular case, not plural).

I haven't seen you debunk ANYTHING I've said, nor do I recall any facts of yours I wasn't able to discern (but I've seen plenty of nonsense you've posted that I was able to discern as just that)

No that you'd ever specifically and correctly point them out. Lot easier to just say they're there and move along, huh ? Hot air is easier than being specific, right ?

No ? But it was in a post (with source link provided) that tended to counter your silly attack on my credibility claim ("it would seem your credibility is more than a little suspect."), as do the other correct facts I mentioned.

"Must" ? Not hardly. I need not do anything to validate my opinions. They stand on their own quite well. As for any opinion of you, your posts are indicative of that. As for my self-confidence, If I didn't have plenty of that, I wouldn't be in here shredding you right now., but I'm doing just that.

You're welcome!

I would imagine it's because you know you surely are both those things.

Nothing "funny" there. You are harassing, quite obviously, because your posts are so wildly ludicrous, often have no substance whatsoever, you openly show pleasure from your harassment, as well as the typical unecessarily sarcastic barb style so common among harassers (Ex. "Most schoolchildren know the origin.I find your dismissal rather amusing" ........."I am utterly intimidated by your obvious vast experience and expertise of the subject."..........."I am confident that any link you provide can be easily refuted with actual facts."..........."thank you very much for this post. It encapsulates a type of partisan that is bereft of intellect and knowledge and long on proudly uninformed vehement bumpersticker opinion." ............"There definitely is something to be said for comprehension, you might want to pick some up next time you're at the 7-11."..............."your perspective on the poor is most enlightening. I always thought that low IQ people had empathy for each other. Who'da thunk.".................."Do you have to further compound the error of your ignorance?".............."I occasionally need a refresher on what a legend in their own minds sounds like. thanks for the demonstration.".............."I am not surprised that you would mistake factual assertions and decent wit as pompous self importance, since I have read your posts."..........."Oh dear, is it harder to get baseball tickets?"..............."I guess there are a lot of white folk who are xenophobic."..........."I see so in your world "Americans" are equivalent to "white"..............."Immigrants are future citizens. Your problem seems to be that they aren't white like you." (NOTE: I am 50% Hispanic)........."What a myopic, ethnocentric, xenophobic perspective. I guess in your eyes white american culture is far to fragile to be exposed to latino or african or chinese or philipino or any other culture."..........."You mention losts of ridiculous stuff. I believe there is a direct correlation."........."I thank you for enlightening me as to the thought processes of a white american isolationist.".........."Like I said, your tour de force demonstration has been enlightening. Unfortunately I detest both racists and isolationists, so I don't think they'll let me join your club.".........."But of course when one sees things in terms of white and everyothercolor, consideration of such things is trumped by nostalgia for a time when civil rights were truly white. Thanks for the insight."
..........."funny how parochial americans can be."

.[/QUOTE]

 

See Post #s 627, 630, and 633,

 

[/QUOTE]

your welcome.

 

In order for an illegal to hold a regular job they had to have broken one or more of the Laws above, will they be prosecuted? If not will American citizens punished for breaking any of the laws above be granted clemency and be paid reparations?

BTW most if not all are Felonies, which would classify them as criminal aliens.

 

I did read the report and considerably more of his writings.
I think I know exactly what he means. He states it rather clearly in his conclusions.

Yes cherry picking. I do not dispute that he clearly says there is a 7/100ths of 1% impact. The cherry picking comes in because he also clearly states taken as a whole the NET effect is neutral. Floor wax or dessert topping?

No not at all. It does depress the gdp. I do not dispute what is clearly stated. What I am confused about is that you seem to think it is the sole measurement of the economic impact of illegal immigration.

Yes they are make a small positive contribution to the economy and the last time I looked businesses participate in the economy, labour participates, consumers participate. And I absolutely agree the money illegals earn and spend is a benefit to the economy.

I am so sorry. I always thought the term NET GAIN was postive.

I can appreciate the difference between accepting findings and dismissing conclusions. I can see how you are fixated on an exact claim which is only one of many made in the report. I believe in most circles that is called cherry picking.

And Are you suggesting that the WSJ economist survey is somehow skewed due to a manipulative series of questions?

fair enough.

Nonsense. this is the old "evolution is only a theory" argument.
We are not talking about belief in the absence of evidence here. We are talking about belief derived from the application of economic theories to the analysis of multiple empirical data sets, based on a varying set of assumptions and observable impacts. Modelling economic impacts is the pursuit of an army of economists and computer scientists.

Ahhh, now I comprehend. I shall refrain from using the statement "illegals benefit the economy overall" and replace it with "illegals provide a net benefit to the economy", from now on.

yes. The net gain to US workers and industry is .03% EXCLUSIVE of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves. Where exactly does the economic impact of that income show up? Could this be the reason for his claiming the 7/100ths of 1% a wash?

which depresses prices which negatively impacts gdp in the standard expenditure approach.
OTOH, Hanson specifically excluded the impact of illegal wages in his calculation of net positives which would mitigate the negative impact by whatever % labour costs represented in retail pricing (simplistically assuming 100% spending). Or am I missing something here?

Yet that appears to be the consensus opinion amongst economists, although they differ on exactly to what extent. They all seem to agree it only hits the lower wage group.

 

"Federal immigration law says that unlawful presence in the country is a civil offense and is, therefore, not a crime. The punishment is deportation. However, some states—like Arizona—are trying to criminalize an immigrant’s mere presence."

http://www.tolerance.org/immigration-myths

 

If they have a regular job, they are felons.

 

That's right, illegals cost GDP -.07%, clearly stated by Hanson. -.1% net fiscal cost +.03% (immigration surplus)= -.07% to GDP, it can't get any clearer than that.

No, he claims the negative number to GDP is close enough to zero (percentage wise) to be a wash.

No, never claimed nor said it was the "sole measurement" of the economic impact. I merely stated that illegals are a net negative to GDP. What ever benefits they give to the economy do not make up the difference they cost us in GDP.

The NET GAIN by illegals is factored in (.03% - Hanson), the economy may benefit from their purchases, but they still cost the people of the US in the long run.

Well, um, ....NO. I made a statement and a claim, I backed that statement and claim up, you've been desperately attempting to refute it. You have yet to do so. All you have to do is accept the fact that illegals are a net negative to GDP and although they may benefit the economy, they are still a net negative overall. Borjas states it, Hanson states it, even Paul Krugman admits it. The only reason that deportations have pretty much slowed down is due to our economy, the Obama admin believes the more people involved in the economy will begin to spur growth, immigrants, visa holders, illegals, citizens, visitors, etc. All the while the feds are pumping $85M per month into the economy. He is doing supply and demand backwards.

Not at all, simply understanding what they mean when they say "benefit the economy" and not taking it to a far stretch to claim that illegals are a NET GAIN to the US, as you have done.

Economics is still only theory. I'll bolden the key words in your paragraph to help you out.

They all seem to agree the lower wage group is impacted the most, not that they are the only ones impacted.

 

Hanson

This is an IF paragraph.

 

it is my opinion that before anyone comes into such a debate, they list their country so we can do an in-depth review of their laws and policies concerning immigration. otherwise, they fail to justify their interest in this topic and are not qualified to engage the US in immigration process debates

 

Most illegals that are caught have forged papers and Social Security numbers, which is a crime and should be deported. Hopefully that will start happing again.

 

good, then load up your place with a couple of dozen of them. Pay for their healthcare, education, clothing, cars out of you own pocket. then go down to your local jail and support all of those illegals, financially yourself.
that would prove to everyone just how tolerant you really are.

 

I finally think I have discovered the motive for Jonsa's trolling. Revealing that he lives in Toronto, Canada (AHA!), this gives him a reason to heavily support Mexican migration into the United States. In recent years, Mexican migration of the least favorable immigrants (you know the homeless, tired, poor, wretched refuse, huddled masses yearning to breathe free). Yeah those guys. The ones who offer nothing, and take away jobs, welfare $$, scarce resources, hospital and schoolroom space, etc. The ones who boost the crime counts, pollute, and add to traffic congestion.

Anyway, It looks like Jonsa Troll has a particular reason for all thr assinine posts in support of immigration INTO THE UNITED STATES. It's because he wants to keep all this immigration OUT OF CANADA. And the more of the wretched refuse who pile into the US, the less of them will be going to Canada.

The Canadian government accuses the Mexican government for failing to restrict the flow of these illegal immigrants. While terrorists, drugs, weapons of mass destruction, illegal aliens, violent criminals, and infectious diseases are illegally entering the Canada from Mexico, a continuous cause of concern is threatening to have a global effect very soon, without which I reckon the situation can never be brought back to normal. Further research also showed that foreign remittances flowing through illegal immigrants who (as the leading source of foreign income for Mexico) send their income to their family back in Mexico, has brought a trade imbalance on the face of it between the two countries.

Maybe we should start a new campaign to get Mexican migrants to go to Canada. We could start with giving out bus tickets to them, and arrange for them to be met at the US/Canada border by dancing girls with candy, popcorn and Corona.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/21refugees.html?_r=0

http://canada0123.com/mexican-immigrants-to-canada

 

this puts the troll on a more level playing field................of course they don't want them..their medical couldn't handle it