President Obama’s Unethical Illegal Immigration Ploy

The President has been doing his summer reading

The ultimate descent of character for any elected leader is when he or she places the retention of political power above core governing principles and the best interests of the governed. I did not expect Barack Obama to sink to that state, but with the announcement yesterday of his cynical and unethical refusal to enforce the immigration laws, he has.

His administration declared yesterday that it will grant an indefinite reprieve to thousands of illegal immigrants facing deportation, and permit them to stay and work legally. This, of course, does more than effect those apprehended illegals: it signals millions more that they are in no danger of having to be accountable for ignoring U.S. immigration procedures, and signals future illegals that the borders of the United States are essentially open.

President Obama had repeatedly insisted that it was Congress’s job to deal with the immigration problem, while his contribution was restricted to harassing and stigmatizing states, like Arizona, that attempted to take proactive efforts to enforce U.S. law.  Once his approval rating ducked under 40%, apparently, the President’s attitudes shifted to Machiavellian, and in the guise of streamlining U.S. security, Obama has established a national policy of non-enforcement. Now “low-priority” offenders have been designated as worthy of a free path to the benefits of U.S. residence, with only convicted felons and other “public safety threats” facing any consequences for breaking the law.

Imagine this system being applied to other U.S. laws. A job and a clean record would mean that you can drive 20 miles over the speed limit without fear of being pulled over, while enforcement will be restricted to drunks and drivers speeding to escape the scene of their robberies. Evading taxes will only be punished if you don’t have kids, or have a splashy job, like, say, Secretary of the Treasury. The principle behind Obana’s illegal immigration enforcement policy  is offensive on its face. But it is far worse than that.

1. It is dishonest. The Administration did not have the integrity, candor or respect for the American people to announce the new policy for what it was and in terms of its actual intent. Instead, the new policy was framed as way to relieve the backlog in the Homeland Security process of deporting individuals who are terrorism and crime threats. The craven and cynical dishonesty of this was immediately demonstrated by the reactions of the group it was aimed at pleasing, the open borders, pro-illegal immigration advocates. Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, was typical, saying, “This is a huge victory, not just for the immigrant and refugee community, but for all of us as American people, living up to our ideals. It makes no sense to deport innocent children, to deport immigrant families. This is huge for the president. We commend him.’’

That’s right, it makes sense to encourage anyone to enter the country illegally as long as they have children quickly upon getting here. What a huge victory for the American people.

2. It is unfair, as the pro-illegal immigration argument has always been unfair. “Seeking the American dream” is not justification for allowing illegal immigrants to delay or prevent the ability of aspiring legal immigrants to enter the country, or for preventing the United States from deciding whom it wants to let inside its borders.

3. It is irresponsible, making the status of illegals even more confusing than it already is, and entrenching long-term problems in education, employment, labor,health and social programs

4. It is incompetent and a breach of duty. The President takes an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. The oath does not permit him to  refuse to enforce those laws he doesn’t like, or to render meaningless laws when doing so will satisfy a crucial voting bloc.

Predictably, the media is portraying the immediate controversy over Obama’s actions in partisan terms. I do not understand why indignation over such an obviously unethical act of governance abuse should be determined by party lines. All Americans should instinctively reject a system of law enforcement in which “good” people are allowed to break laws and “bad” people are punished.  In the eyes of a fair justice system, violators of the same law must be equally culpable. I do not comprehend why citizens of any belief system, including legal immigrants, would support policies that encourage and provide incentives for illegal immigrants.

It is obviously impractical and unrealistic to insist that all illegal immigrants be deported, but the concept that illegal activity can be retroactively validated by having a family, working, or not breaking other laws is ethically incoherent and destructive. The law already has a model for the problem of long-time illegal immigrants: statutes of limitation. After a certain number of years, the opportunity for law enforcement to punish most crimes expires, allowing wrongdoers to turn the page and get on with their lives, and allowing law enforcement to concentrate on more recent violations. Make the limit 15 years, or 10; have the INS concentrate on recent boarder-jumpers. Statutes of limitation don’t create incentives to commit crimes, unlike ill-conceived, sentimental legislation like the various “Dream Acts;” they don’t confer virtue on the scofflaws who successfully avoid appropriate punishment, like Obama’s new “nice illegals won’t get deported and then their relatives will vote Democratic” policy. They just clear the backlog.

It should be clear, however, the Obama Administration’s motive wasn’t to start solving the illegal immigration crisis, but to exploit it for electoral gain. The idealistic President who came into office promising so much has officially and unmistakably sunk to buying votes with the integrity of America, personifying the politician who proves himself unworthy of power by the manner in which he seeks to retain it.

29 thoughts on “President Obama’s Unethical Illegal Immigration Ploy

  1. The only beef I have in your exposition is imagining that the President arrived as an “idealist,” as opposed to someone staged to enter the scene by exercising his oratorical gifts amongst those susceptible to the exposition of idealistic sentiments. I believe that the only surprise is how long it took for Obama to get to this point to abuse the Constitution so brazenly, as opposed to the many other ways he has done so more surreptitiously.

    • Well, as you know, I believe that the President, and any president, deserves the benefit of the doubt. Many have found themselves, like the character in W.S. Gilbert’s non-Sullivan operetta “The Mountebanks,” entering the White House and magically becoming the person they were pretending to be. I had hopes that this would be the case with Obama. Not expectations, but hopes.

  2. Actually, Jack, it’s hard not to look at this in partisan terms as it was done with a blatant partisan agenda in mind. Losing support in the polls? Make new voters out of aliens by indulging them with defacto citizenship. Never mind the serious burden this will continue to place on legitimate American citizens in almost every possible manner. That can be blamed on someone else. “The first priority of a politician is to get re-elected.”! However, Obama may find that a significant difference exists between illegal aliens from Latin countries and American citizens of Latin ancestry.

    • I agree that it is easy to look at this from a partisan prism, but it should be seen as a bi-partisan outrage. I have given people a chance to defend the open-borders approach without resorting to rationalizations and sentiment—“Think about the children?” “They just want what we were born with!” “They are just following their dream!”—all of which could be applied to bank robbers with equal justification. They just can’t do it. There is no honest, fair, rational justification for allowing illegal immigration, only self-interest, stupidity and greed.

    • Actually, Jack, it’s hard not to look at this in partisan terms as it was done with a blatant partisan agenda in mind. Losing support in the polls? Make new voters out of aliens by indulging them with defacto citizenship.

      Nonsense. No one has proposed giving undocumented immigrants voting rights. Nothing in what the Obama administration has proposed would “make new voters out of aliens.”

        • I don’t see how Steven’s sentence “Make new voters out of aliens by indulging them with defacto citizenship” can possibly be interpreted in the way you suggest, Jack.

          But even if you’re right, so what? What you’re describing is how representative democracy is supposed to work. Appealing to voters based on substantive policy positions is the right thing to do — much better than trying to appeal to voters with a great haircut, slick TV ads, false claims, etc..

          • 1.Yeah, I should have checked it—you’re right: I don’t know what the hell Steven meant by that. “De facto citizenship” doesn’t come with voting rights.
            2. Agreed, but appealing to voters with BAD and unethical policies is not a good thing. And this is both.

            • The current term is “backdoor amnesty”, guys. Once you legitimize illegal immigration by fiat (as is being done here) it is only one more step to full citizenship. And to whom will those new citizens (and voters) owe their allegiance? To those who allowed them in, protected them, nurtured them with public amenities and then gave them the vote. This is how a regime with despotic ambitions can establish itself.

  3. I plead innocent to self interest or greed, and nolo to stupidity.

    Still I have a serious disagreement with you. There are three points that I need to think about more and write at some length on, as soon as I sort out my thoughts:
    1) It’s unethical to punish the “Dream Act” kids, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, and whose lives would be hurt terribly by deportation.
    2) Obama’s new policy may be tactically best from a law-enforcement standpoint, as many law enforcement people say.
    3) This is the hardest to explain and, I admit, to justify ethically–I have empathy for people who have entered illegally, or overstayed their visas, but have lived good, productive, even ethical lives for many years. I have a hard time understanding the anger many feel towards these people. Perhaps my feelings are connected to the knowledge that my grandparents immigrated when there were no immigration controls except for a check for tuberculosis–the only (or principal) disqualifier.

    • I plead innocent to self interest or greed, and nolo to stupidity.

      No, you are a good, wise and fair man who has a hard time separating the policy from sentiment, which is just what the cynical exploiters of illegal immigration count on.


      1) It’s unethical to punish the “Dream Act” kids, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, and whose lives would be hurt terribly by deportation.

      Is it unethical to “punish” the children of imprisoned felons by taking their parents away? Are children an automatic, unfixable loophole that should make immigration control impossible? The accountability for the plight of the children is the parents’ and the parents alone. This is guilt shifting, effective, but unjustifiable. We should not allow parents to make their kids our responsibility by breaking the law.

      2) Obama’s new policy may be tactically best from a law-enforcement standpoint, as many law enforcement people say.

      Which would be fine, if that had anything to do with why he was doing it, and if it wasn’t irresponsible to trade away control of the borders for efficiency.

      3) This is the hardest to explain and, I admit, to justify ethically–I have empathy for people who have entered illegally, or overstayed their visas, but have lived good, productive, even ethical lives for many years. I have a hard time understanding the anger many feel towards these people. Perhaps my feelings are connected to the knowledge that my grandparents immigrated when there were no immigration controls except for a check for tuberculosis–the only (or principal) disqualifier.

      I think that’s easy to justify, and both sympathy and empathy are legitimate. I don’t have any anger against the illegals at all, and when people ask if I would do the same thing in their position, I can’t say that I wouldn’t. My anger is at the unholy alliance of the vote-seeking Democrats and the cheap-labor-seeking Republicans, who are willing to undermine so many other aspect of national welfare in their own interests.

      • Children of imprisoned felons is a specious comparison. We’re talking here about actions aimed directly at the children, many of whom have done nothing wrong and have known no other life.

        Oh, and thanks for the compliment…I think.

        • Are you talking about deporting parents, or deporting children? The citizen children of deported parents are the analogy I was referring to. You were referring to non-citizen children brought into the country by their parents…my error. So:

          1) The parents are also accountable for their plight.
          2) Once they are old enough and realize they are illegal, they have an obligation to become legal by leaving. Sad, but we play the hands we are dealt. they have no right to citizenship just because their parents broke the law. And, I would add, “of course.”
          3.) My point about children as loopholes still stands…and I’d love to hear a rebuttal.

          • On point 1) I agree–of course. On 2) I disagree: the children haven’t done anything wrong, and in many cases it would be heartless to deport them to a place they’ve never seen, to a language they don’t know, and away from the only life they know.

            No loopholes: the parents shouldn’t get a pass because of the kids. Very young kids would go with the parents. Eighteen year olds could do what they want–stay or go.

          • Once they are old enough and realize they are illegal, they have an obligation to become legal by leaving.

            If they have such an ethical obligation, it’s only the obligation to obey the law. But that’s not a reason not to change the law.

            It’s not unethical to change the law so that undocumented immigrants who were brought here as kids can have an easier path to citizenship — a path based on a combination of not committing any felonies, and either graduating college or serving in the armed forces. That way kids who were raised in the US get to become US citizens, and the US benefits from having more college graduates and more volunteers for the armed forces. It’s win/win.

            On the other hand, it’s an extraordinary injustice for someone who has been in the US since they were two months old, who has obeyed the rules, gone to college, and been productive, to be told at age 20 “you’ve been illegal all along” and to send them to a country where they’ve never been, have no support system and may not even speak the language. Why shouldn’t we change the law so that this sort of injustice happens less often?

            • Sometimes, as a result of allowing an unethical situation to go too far, there is no ethical solution. This is one of those times, and the children of illegal immigrants who never should have been allowed to enter and stay in this country in the first place are the victims, Yes, it is unfair to send such a child back after many years. It is also unfair, damaging and dangerous to have unrestrained illegal immigration. Sorry: in a contest between being fair to a non-citizen or being fair to the national as a whole, taxpayers, and legal immigrants, there really is no choice. The country wins; the children get screwed, and they can blame Republicans, Democrats, and their parents for creating the situation that led to said screwing. It’s too bad, but creating an incentive for illegals to bring their children to the US and create the conditions encouraged and rewarded by the Dream Acts is much worse. I’ll weep about it if it makes anyone feel better, but really—this is, ethically, an easy, easy call.

              • Well put, Jack. In a very real sense, these children are both political pawns and the result of selective law enforcement for political gain. Both factors bode ill; not just for those illegal kids, but for American ones. Without the rule of law, freedom ceases.

              • Yes, it is unfair to send such a child back after many years. It is also unfair, damaging and dangerous to have unrestrained illegal immigration.

                This is a false dichotomy, and a completely dishonest argument.

                What I argued for was a system in which certain undocumented immigrants who can meet specific requirements — in the US since childhood, no felony convictions, and with either a college education or having volunteered for the armed forces — will have an expedited path to legal citizenship.

                I didn’t argue for “unrestrained illegal immigration.” That’s a strawman argument — one you presumably used because you don’t have a single logical argument to make against the DREAM Act.

                Apart from the strawman, you only make one actual argument: You claim the Dream Act is bad because it would create an incentive for undocumented immigrants to come to the US. But there’s no evidence at all that passing the Dream Act would lead to any noticeable increase in undocumented immigration. If you look objectively at which states have the most immigrants, and when immigration numbers go up and down, it’s obvious that immigration is driven by economic conditions and geographic accessibility, not by differences in immigration laws.

                People aren’t coming to the US because they have a devious 20–year plan to get their children US citizenship (it’s easy to get a child citizenship; just come to the US for the birth). People come because they need to work, typically. Passing the Dream Act won’t change that incentive at all; what it will do is treat a lot of innocent young people more fairly than they’re now being treated.

  4. The Obama Administration has already deported a record number of people, almost 400,000, angering many Hispanics, who form a key voting bloc for Obama. They say it will cost too much money to deport 300,000 people waiting for deportation, but according to FAIR the cost of harboring undocumented immigrants (it’s no longer politically correct to call them illegals) is 113 billion dollars a year and about 10 – l3,000 dollars a year to educate their children. This is not counting the enormous cost to state and local governments as a result of immigration laws not being enforced. Obama always waits until Congress is in recess to make important decisions. This one is very timely especially since Mexican Drug cartels are armed to the hilt. Like it or not what Obama is really saying is, “Get your butts to the USA because US laws will not be enforced if you want to work. You can compete with US citizens for jobs in this economic downturn and probably get them since you will be willing to work for lower wages. Just don’t forget to vote for me in the next election.”

    • It’s a mistake to think of jobs as if they were a set number: “There are 100 jobs in this town and not one more, so every person who moves into town take a job away from someone who was already in town.” In fact, every person who moves into town will be spending money in town, buying food and clothes and other stuff in town, paying rent in town, etc.. Increased consumer demand means more jobs.

      Furthermore, very often immigrants bring complimentary skills, not competitive skills, to the job market. If I draw comics for a living, that I print on my own printing press and sell, then it’s to my benefit if someone with printing skills moves into town, because her skill set compliments mine; I can spend more time drawing comics while she does the printing, and we’ll both make more money.

      Finally, US workers are compete with low-wage workers from other countries regardless of the state of immigration. That’s globalization for you; Americans are competing with people from the other side of the planet. To suggest that we can avoid this by keeping immigrants out is nonsense.

      The difference is that when the low-wage workers are in the US instead of another country, the American economy benefits from their presence.

      It may be that there’s an argument for tough immigration laws based on security or some form of ethics. But economically, immigration is extremely beneficial, and we’d be richer if we lowered barriers to immigration rather than raising them.

      More on this here.
      Finally

      • There are no reasonable justifications for ignoring illegal immigration. If you want to make it legal, than do so, and accept the consequences. But if the law says it’s illegal, it has to be enforced, and those who break US laws, intentionally and in defiance of our sovereignty, must not be excused, celebrated or catered to. I don’t care what the benefits of lawbreakers are or are not—allowing laws to be defied is NOT beneficial, and is the #1 issue. Until that is addressed, the rest is distraction.

        And it is unethical to break a law, as well as unethical not to enforce it, or to assist someone in doing either.

        • Funny, when Horace said a bunch of utterly wrong things about the economic effects of immigration, you didn’t tell him that the ethics are what’s important, so never mind the economic effects. You told him that he’d made a completely fair assessment. Either the economics are relevant, or they’re not; for you to in effect treat them as relevant if an economic claim helps your case, but argue for ignoring economics once the actual evidence is presented, just makes you seem less credible.

          Also, you refer to people breaking US laws “intentionally.” But of course, the people the Dream Act would help did not break the law intentionally.

          I don’t think you have a very realistic idea of how the law actually works, Jack (even though I believe you’re a lawyer). In practice, the government cannot solve every single crime and misdemeanor that ever happens, and so they have to prioritize. (Keep in mind that being an undocumented immigrant is a misdemeanor, not a felony.) Local police forces spend a lot more time and effort trying to keep traffic safe than ticketing people for illegally sitting on sidewalks, for instance. Is that unethical? No, it’s reasonable prioritizing — the damage caused by unsafe driving is many times worse.

          The US doesn’t have the budget or the ability to deport every single undocumented immigrant in the country. That being the case, it makes perfect sense to prioritize deporting the people who are proven dangers to American citizens, such as people who have committed felonies. To say that the government should never prioritize is not only horribly ignorant of how the government always works and always has worked, it’s also a call for bad government. A government that’s not capable of saying “we’d be better off spending our limited resources on X rather than Y, because X is much more urgent” is a government that is unable to govern effectively.

          • 1. Horace wasn’t wrong. Illegals and their kids obviously place an economic burden on hosiptals, schools, and communities generally, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. They also keep salaries for certain jobs unconscionably low.
            2. But even if none of that were true, it would still be wrong to let illegals just come and stay.
            3. I have never advocated deporting every illegal immigrant at this point. It would be ugly, impossible, and too divisive. The “no amnesty zealots” are, I believe, certifiable. We have to solve the problem.
            4. Prioritizing is one thing; using prioritizing as a euphemism for non-enforcement for political gain is something entirely different.
            5. Every single illegal should have to worry about being deported every day. The IRS can’t track down every small time tax cheat, but I don’t see Obama announcing that to “clear the decks” only big, bad tax cheats will be prosecuted. Gee, Barry–why do you think that is? Hmmmm?
            6. I’ll answer for you: because it would be a green light to cheat. And that’s what Obama–absolutely intentionally—gave potential illegal immigrants.

            • 1. It may or may not be true that particular schools, hospitals, or communities are burdened by undocumented immigrants. But what matters is the economy as a whole, which benefits from immigration. The more your side succeeds in keeping immigration down, the less money all of us will have in 20 years — and that’s less money available to fund things like schools and hospitals.

              People know that undocumented immigrants bid down wages by accepting lower wages than Americans do, and then falsely conclude that if the immigrants went away the wages for (say) fruit-pickers would rise.

              But in fact, what the undocumented workers are doing is keeping those low-wage jobs in America. If all the undocumented fruit-pickers in California disappeared tomorrow, all those fruit-picking jobs wouldn’t go to higher-paid American workers. Instead, all those fruit-picking jobs would move to Mexico. (Again, globalization: You can’t stop cheap foreign labor from competing with Americans by deporting foreign workers.)

              Finally, remember that when we disempower undocumented immigrants, that means that those immigrants have to put up with much worse working conditions, because they’re afraid that if they complain they’ll be deported. So although you worry about what undocumented immigrants do to job conditions in the US, the policy you favor — keeping them in fear, every single day — will in fact make working conditions much worse.

              2. Just because something’s against the law, doesn’t establish that the law in question isn’t unjust, inefficient, badly conceived or just a bad idea.

              3. Okay, so you agree that we need to prioritize which unauthorized immigrants get deported, since we can’t deport all of them. Good. So what’s wrong with deciding that we should concentrate on deporting the dangerous felons?

              4. If they were really “using prioritizing as a euphemism for non-enforcement,” that would mean that they weren’t intending to enforce the laws at all, rather than doing what they claim they’ll be doing (focusing on enforcing the law against felons). Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support this remarkable accusation?

              Instead, you seem to be complaining that Obama has chosen a good policy — prioritization, which you now admit you favor — but he’s done it with impure motives, because he’s aware that prioritizing felons might also be popular with voters. Well, that’s how politics work. Should he only favor good policy when voters hate it?

              5&6. Again, there is no evidence at all that people’s decision to immigrate is based on this sort of stuff. You’re favoring extremely cruel policies based on ignorant, mistaken beliefs, Jack. Overwhelmingly immigration is driven by economics, not by what one administration or another does. Right now, immigration is down because the US economy sucks. If the US economy improves, then immigration will rise. And that will be true regardless of how hard the US government tries to deport peaceful, hard-working people who are providing enormous benefits to the US economy.

              Compassionate laws don’t increase immigration. Immigrants aren’t attracted to the US by compassion — they’re attracted by jobs. Period.

              • Barry, Barry Barry. The fact that a bright guy like you—I read your blog; I know you are sharp and informed—has to squirm and rationalize this issue to get where you do does two things: it convinced me that the justifications for illegal immigration are just as weak and ideology-driven as I thought, and it makes me wonder why thinking people just don’tt hear what they are saying and conclude—“Wait! This makes no sense! I can’t possibly believe this!”:

                1. It may or may not be true that particular schools, hospitals, or communities are burdened by undocumented immigrants. But what matters is the economy as a whole, which benefits from immigration. The more your side succeeds in keeping immigration down, the less money all of us will have in 20 years — and that’s less money available to fund things like schools and hospitals.

                a) I don’t have a “side,’ and I’d ask you to strike that from your lexicon. If the Mafia benefited the economy, it would still not justify its breaking the laws. Glad you can merge the cynical big business rationalization with the absurd liberal rationalization—that’s an achievement. Other than that, it is forced ends-justify-the means bootstrapping.

                People know that undocumented immigrants bid down wages by accepting lower wages than Americans do, and then falsely conclude that if the immigrants went away the wages for (say) fruit-pickers would rise.But in fact, what the undocumented workers are doing is keeping those low-wage jobs in America. If all the undocumented fruit-pickers in California disappeared tomorrow, all those fruit-picking jobs wouldn’t go to higher-paid American workers. Instead, all those fruit-picking jobs would move to Mexico. (Again, globalization: You can’t stop cheap foreign labor from competing with Americans by deporting foreign workers.)

                B. Right. My neighbor will ship her garden and toddler to India rather than employ illegals to handle the work. And all those fruit crops will somehow be magically transported to South Korea. Come on. The wages stay low because illegals have no leverage and can’t report abuse. How can anyone justify such a system? Only be ignoring it’s realities.

                Finally, remember that when we disempower undocumented immigrants, that means that those immigrants have to put up with much worse working conditions, because they’re afraid that if they complain they’ll be deported. So although you worry about what undocumented immigrants do to job conditions in the US, the policy you favor — keeping them in fear, every single day — will in fact make working conditions much worse.

                So we should empower people who violate laws and rules? This is just more bootstarpping. Their plight is their own fault, and it makes no sense for us to make breaking laws more attractive and convenient..OBVIOUSLY. How does anyone reach positions like you are advocating? It’s mind-boggling. I feel like I am in Bizarro World.

                2. Just because something’s against the law, doesn’t establish that the law in question isn’t unjust, inefficient, badly conceived or just a bad idea.

                What laws are you referring to—LAWS REGULATING PEOPLE COMING INTO THE US AND ENFORCING THEM? Are you arguing that it is unjust for a sovereign power to decide who gets its benefits and protection? Open borders are a good idea? Ask the Native Americans if they were a good idea. Beyond that, you are ignoring the rules of a Democracy. If you think a law is wrong, your choices are 1) advocate against it while obeying it 2) try to change it while obeying it, and 3) violating it openly and accepting the consequences. Note that breaking it for your own selfish benefit and hiding to avoid accountability isn’t on the list.

                3. Okay, so you agree that we need to prioritize which unauthorized immigrants get deported, since we can’t deport all of them. Good. So what’s wrong with deciding that we should concentrate on deporting the dangerous felons?

                4. If they were really “using prioritizing as a euphemism for non-enforcement,” that would mean that they weren’t intending to enforce the laws at all, rather than doing what they claim they’ll be doing (focusing on enforcing the law against felons). Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support this remarkable accusation?

                Instead, you seem to be complaining that Obama has chosen a good policy — prioritization, which you now admit you favor — but he’s done it with impure motives, because he’s aware that prioritizing felons might also be popular with voters. Well, that’s how politics work. Should he only favor good policy when voters hate it?

                I didn’t say it’s a good policy as applied. Prioritization is rational in theory, but when it encourages law-breaking and social/economic and legal disruption, it is a cynical, stupid and destructive policy.

                5&6. Again, there is no evidence at all that people’s decision to immigrate is based on this sort of stuff. You’re favoring extremely cruel policies based on ignorant, mistaken beliefs, Jack. Overwhelmingly immigration is driven by economics, not by what one administration or another does. Right now, immigration is down because the US economy sucks. If the US economy improves, then immigration will rise. And that will be true regardless of how hard the US government tries to deport peaceful, hard-working people who are providing enormous benefits to the US economy.

                Nonsense, Barry. Jobs are the main driver, getting kids and unborn babies into the US so they can become citizens are a secondary motivation. If it makes you feel better, I also support criminal sanctions against any company that hires an illegal without a good faith check of their citizenship, and enforcing felony charges against illegals—not “undocumented workers”—the use of euphemisms is indicia of an unsustainable argument when the facts are admitted—-when they use forged documents.

                Enforcing laws isn’t cruel. There is an easy way to avoid its consequences. Don’t violate them. The fact that illegal immigrants by definition defy this principle should be sufficient to disqualify them for US citizenship.

  5. This effectively makes the act of crossing the border the criminal act (punishable by being sent home) rather than one’s unlawful presence in the country. Once you have safely, but illegally, arrived you will only be subject to immigration law if you prove to be a serious criminal after you get settled in. Kind of makes the folks who follow the rules look like suckers.

  6. What interests me is this continual reference by pro-illegals to “punishing the children”. What punishment? Is returning them to their rightful country (with their parents) some sort of personal penalty? This is not their homeland! Nobody’s holding them guilty and nobody’s punishing them. If they were actually born in this country, they could quickly apply for readmission upon maturity, if they desired. But their parents must be deported, as they broke the law by coming here. And children should grow up with their parents- whether in Mexico, Russia or, for that matter, Indonesia!

  7. Dear remaining Al-Queda leadership:

    The United States of America shares in your grief over the loss of your leader, Osama Bin-Laden, at the hands of the U.S. military and furthermore we understand your natural desire for revenge and retribution.

    In this spirit, we would like to take this opportunity to point out that, should you choose to plan some sort of attack on American soil, that the easiest method for entering the country is through our southern border with Mexico. We can assure you that there will be no actions taken to try to stop you, nor to hamper your efforts once you have entered the country. In fact, we are currently taking steps to make the process even easier. We believe that entering Mexico from anywhere else in the world should pose no difficulty for you: in fact, there are numerous drug cartels that would be willing to assist you on a pro-bono basis or in return for some nominal assistance with carrying some of their product across the border.

    We would also like to take this opportunity to offer what we consider the best possible advice to insure success: recruit Mexicans and other Hispanics to carry out your plans. These people have been given special immunity from law-enforcement for certain key criminal acts that would otherwise result in incarceration for U.S. Citizens, and you will find that this special immunity is particularly useful for accomplishing your goals. In cases where State (or local) governments are not cooperating with the special immunity status, we promise that we will do everything in our power to make sure that these States are not permitted to carry out their plans.

    We wish you the best and offer our sincerest “good luck” to you on your plans. As a good friend of mine once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

    Sincerely:
    Barack Obama
    President of the United States of America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.