People want simple answers. Unfortunately some things require more details to answer and while complex issues may be broken down to simpler questions solving does not involve a single simple answer but a degree of information that exceeds the attention span of many.
Subjects such as immigration and border security can be simple yet multileveled and thus complicated. The basic stereotype of a Latino crossing the southern border of the United States does not apply to everyone. At colleges and universities we see quite a number of students and even colleagues who experienced visa SNAFUs.
Now proof of what is and is not happening will be in the wording upon actual issuance, but President Obama’s outline of reforms do not:
- A) Provide a path to full legal status
- B) Provide US government benefits such as healthcare
- C) Register any individuals to vote
Among the major reforms outlined by the President include:
- A) Protection for families from deportation
- B) Increased focus and funding to apprehend and then deport individuals committing violent crimes on US soil
- C) The ability for highly skilled workers to change jobs more easily
I’ll agree with opponents in that things are not as simple and direct as what I typed above. We can cherry pick any of the six. I’ll disagree with anyone who thinks the above is outrageous and being instituted by some fiat.
These individuals are already here in the United States. Resources will be directed to reduce the numbers of those attempting to enter illegally. The President may not be using the buzzword of border security, but he is advocating with these reforms that border security become a greater priority.
I’ll agree with you concerning arguments that many jobs that could be held by Americans are being performed by the illegal immigrants present. The respective employers, however, are also at fault and should be held accountable in my opinion. What’s preventing them from hiring “you” for that job instead of the individual here illegally?
Oh, you expect to be paid fairly? I support you, but that business has decided to support increasing its profit margin by hiring people that they can pay unfairly. Personally I feel sorry for but also respect any person doing back breaking work for unfair compensation because that is how they are providing food and shelter for their family. These people aren’t robbing your small businesses; they aren’t picking pockets on the street; they aren’t denying you of anything; they are working their butts off just like the rest of us. “You” don’t get the same job because someone will need to pay you more. If there must be a bad guy, it isn’t the person struggling to pay his or her bills and save for retirement like you or me. It’s the person taking advantage of the cheaper labor to benefit themselves.
Of course I’ll argue that we should not reward people who have broken our laws. Yes these individuals entered the United States illegally. Those violations are crimes but crimes more akin to paper styled crimes. It’s not a fully accurate comparison, but there are differences between receiving a parking violation versus armed robbery, assault and battery, or murder. The goal outlined by the President is to focus resources on apprehending and deporting those committing violent crimes versus devoting a majority of attention on someone who failed to park within the lines because they’re easier to find. He highlights these procedural changes in the proposals.
It’s true that individuals who are living an honest life now are still guilty of that illegal entry. Nobody is denying that fact, but these individuals are not being excused or pardoned for that crime. They will be held accountable for the financial penalties accrued. They will be responsible for the costs of all the paperwork and procedural costs. The message is that you will pay for the rules that you have broken and that you must live within the rules in order to remain.
I’m not sure if that fits the definition of amnesty; at least the definition being supplied from those arguing against the reforms.
I think that definition should be applied to many back home in Louisiana. Seriously the Bobby Jindal administration relies upon millions of dollars from a program that allows tax evaders an opportunity to avoid penalties, create payment plans, and receive reduced interest rates just for coming forth to pay what they were legally obligated to pay in the first place? Heck one can even use tax credits as payment for the taxes they tried not to pay.
That’s amnesty and probably encourages quite a few to not pay when required but when it is to their financial advantage. That type of amnesty results in cuts that impact you and me and our wallets directly. Why isn’t outrage being directed at these scofflaws in the same manner of people NOT receiving amnesty for their illegal entry?
As far as Presidential overreach, the same hold true with any Executive Action. Congress merely needs to pass legislation which makes the Executive Actions null and void. Sure they can choose not to fund the increased border security, but Louisiana’s own Bill Cassidy was one of the cosponsors on the proposed SMART Act of 2013 which would have funded increased border security. It’s strange how approaches are supported right up to the point when President Obama suggests that same approach. If coming from this President only then does it become an overreach of power.
It is difficult to overcome a decree issued by a dictator, a totalitarian, an authoritarian, a monarch, or at times a guardian or supervisor. Here we don’t have an irrevocable fiat or even something that necessitates a level of exertion resulting in profuse perspiration. This type of oppression and suppression that President Obama is bringing can be overcome simply by Congress performing their responsibilities in any way, shape, or form. In other words these Executive Orders can be revoked without any sweat while lounging in conditioned air luxury, eating your favorite food, drinking alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages of one’s choosing, watching the ballgame or anything else. Apparently that’s too much to ask of the 113th Congress and the incoming 114th Congress.
Why do something when you can just complain?
Actually if anyone still wants to contend that everything concerning these Executive Actions is about amnesty, please consider that what we currently have is amnesty without the Executive Actions being law.
- It is amnesty granted through inaction.
- It is amnesty resulting from paralysis of the system.
- It is amnesty authorized by Congress for choosing not to do anything.