What one calls discretain; another calls discrimination, abuse of authority or
any number of other things.The point of laws is to stop anarchy.
All of us with the exception of American Indians came here from legal
immigration. We worked hard to get ahead and there was no entitlements then to
rely on for food stamps, medicare, etc. The system today is vastly different
and we are not only rewarding people who do things illegally but also
incentivizing them to continue to do so.Obama needs to follow the
law along with everyone else. He also needs to remember there are millions of
out of work US citizens and legal residents. This country also allows in 1
million each of new immigrants and new visa holders to do non ag work for each
of the past 10 years plus. Where are all the jobs for these people and could we
prioritize our own citizens first or is that asking too much? Certainly seems
that way to us.
If there are 300,000 illegals in the court system, why are they even still here
after more than a couple of days of processing? At least half of illegals
entered the US from the Southern border. For them, it should take a lot to keep
them from just being immediately returned to their home country. For the ones
who overstayed their visas (the other half), there should also need to be proof
that they have been actively working to get that situation corrected. If they
just disappeared instead of going home, then again they should just be put on
the bus as soon as possible. We've got 9% unemployment of legal residents and
10 to 30 million people who feel they are entitled to decide who should stay in
the US. What about the other 3 billion or so that want to be here?
Since the Constitution no longer seems to be relevant to our times the
"Utah Guest Worker Waiver" may not be far behind. Now that I think of
it the Utah Guest Worker Waiver may not even be necessary since Obama is
implementing it nation wide without congressional authority.
The President took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to execute
the laws of this nation.It seems that he has just crossed the line
into impeachable territory when he refused to execute the laws - as written -
not as he interprets them nor as he wishes them to be.
How is it that Obama, hatred of whom has become a recreational sport in Utah, is
more on board with the counsel of the LDS Church on the immigration issue than
the Utah GOP is?Mike Richards: you seem pretty selective about
"impeachable" offenses. Here Obama, who is doing far more than his
predecessor did to deport illegal immigrants, is worthy of impeachment in your
book. But were you calling for impeachment with each of Bush's infamous
"signing statements"? Were you calling for impeachment of Reagan
during the Iran Contra affair?
My aqquantance with a hotel briefly let all his illegal workers go when there
were threats of empoyer sanctions. Now that it's clear there are not he is
hiring illegals again. He's a tea-partier too - loves his SS and
Medicare and doesn't want any poor people competing for government money he has
"earned".Employer sanctions almost worked.........
The implication that current law is unenforceable is disingenuous. I am
confident that the Deseret News, and its owner, understands the law-enforcement
doctrine of "deterrence by example." No, it is not necessary to
simultaneously "round up" 12-50 million. What is necessary is an
effective penalty for disrespectfully invading and stealing from this country:
fines, imprisonment, deportation, and yes confiscation of property -- by example
-- AND the understanding, on the part of the remaining 49,999,999, that the
self-same thing could happen to ANY ONE OF THEM as well. Then all of a sudden
you'll see foreign nationals showing a smidgen of respect for this country and
its borders, sovereignty, laws, and citizens. No, enforcement has NOT been
tried, in earnest, here in Utah -- what with local law enforcement's sanctuary
and criminal immunity policies, for example.Of course discretion has
its rightful place in the law. But true discretion takes place on a
case-by-case basis and by confidential, intra-office memorandum. Loudly and
publicly trumpeting blanket "discretion" for a MAJOR swath of
lawbreakers is NOT true discretion; it is willful subversion of the law --
amnesty by fiat -- not to mention defeat of the "deterrence" doctrine.
Hans von Spakovsky, writing for the Heritage Foundation, has this to say (and I
agree):"The President has an obligation to enforce the
immigration laws passed by Congress. He does not have the authority to ignore a
comprehensive federal law that he knows is constitutional. In fact, this new
policy not only ignores the law, it puts the federal government in the position
of helping individuals violate federal law and avoid the sanctions that Congress
provided. The President has no authority to provide a general amnesty yet he
(and his administration) act as if they are the law."This new
policy strikes at a fundamental underpinning of our nation the rule of law. It
rewards illegality and lawbreakers, encourages even more aliens to enter the
United States illegally, and comes at a time when President Obama has started
his reelection campaign with such a low approval rating, that it is essential
that he get a substantial majority of the Hispanic vote to serve a second term.
It is another shameful instance of putting politics before the law."What hubris!
So what happens to the new illegal aliens that are taken in between now and the
end of the year. This what the media should be asking. And how can
these guest workers work here, when they are in violation of immigration and
labor laws by displacing Americans. I get tired of the calls for
compassion from Utah's press for those who do not know what compassion means.
Yes I'm talking about the Salt Lake Chamber of commerce, and those coming here
illegally. Can anyone tell me about the prophecy about Salt Lake
city being one of the most evil cities in the world in the final days?
Yes DN we know you have no compassion for your fellow Utahn. They can be
replaced with cheap labor can't they?
This is a lose lose situation. It rewards those who break the law, and teaches a
lack of respect for the laws and others. It punishes those who follow the law,
and respect their fellow man enough to do things right.
Mike Richards,Yes, the president takes an oath to protect and defend
the Constitution and to execute our laws. If Pres. Obama has crossed into
impeachable territory, then every president since Carter (including Reagan and
both Bushs) are guilty of the same offense. We did not get 12 million illegal
aliens here overnight. I have spoken with several who have been here for more
than a decade.BTW, every sheriff has some discretion in how and when
the law is enforced.Lectori Salutem,See above.Also, history and the constitution show Mr. von Spakovsky is wrong about the
president's ability to grant amnesty.From the Wikifolks: . . . the
pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States
under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that
the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses
against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The Supreme
Court of the United States has interpreted this language to include the power to
grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional
commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and
Has the war been won, the war for the undocumented immigrant? This means good
people coming to America, but lacking paperwork to be here, can now be legal.
Wonderful! It means that federal waiver for a guest worker program is perhaps
not necessary, as the Department of Homeland Security is going to grant them
work permits.With one broad stroke of a pen, so to speak, liberty is
theirs.But, alas, the battle for the immigrant is not over, for the
Constitution gives the right to decide naturalization to Congress, not to the
executive branch. Unless Congress has passed a law (or laws) putting this in the
hands of the executive branch, the matter is not settled. Napolitano did a
beautiful thing only if she was within her authority.True, our
resources belong with the nation's safety. Are they so limited we can only chase
those illegal immigrants involved in drug trafficking, murder and such? Or, if
truth be told, do we actually have the resources to chase a larger chunk of the
undocumenteds, even if not all of them? I would love to think many
of the undocumenteds just won their liberty, but fear Congress still has the
"Aliens who possess no entry documents or whose documents are either
fraudulently obtained or COUNTERFEIT are subject to expedited removal. So are
aliens who have entered (or attempted to enter) the United States without having
first been admitted by an immigration officer at a standard port of entry.
Aliens have the right to make claim to legal status in the United States, or
they can ask for asylum. While the INS can allow an alien to appear before an
immigration judge, there is no obligation to do so, and the alien may simply be
ordered removed."That's the law. The President has taken an
oath to uphold and to EXECUTE the laws of the United States. He is not a member
of the Legislative Branch which WRITES the laws. He IS a member of the
Executive Branch which EXECUTES the laws passed by the Legislative Branch, laws
that are in force until the Supreme Court declares them to be unconstitutional.
It is NOT within the President's prerogative to decide whether a law is
constitutional or unconstitutional; that is left to the Court. The President is
bound to execute the laws - as written - or to be removed from office.
Thanks, Mike Richards. Is that an overview of a law passed by Congress, or of
another policy statement? Would be fun to know where in the U.S. Code it is, if
that is where it comes from.Was it on another comment strand that
someone noted the Emancipation Proclamation was also an executive decree, same
as ia Napolitano's written statement Thursday. Some may think it goes too far to
compare the illegal immigrant with slaves of the past. But, though on a much
lesser scale, I think not. I see them as being deprived of God-given rights.
Those who are just wanting to join family here in America, and those who want no
more than to work, and those who aspire to being Americans, yes, I think we
should grant those rights to them. Yes, I can see a type of discrimination
against them, they not having equal rights for no more reason than not being
born on American soil. Living on American soil should not be a crime. The
boundaries of America define where principles of freedom should exist -- for all
-- as opposed to being boundaries locking out and excluding good people from
enjoying those freedoms here.