Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

The Immediate (and Not So Immediate) Impact of Obama's Immigration Announcement

playahaitian

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
The Immediate (and Not So Immediate) Impact of Obama's Immigration Announcement

President Obama has announced Executive Action on immigration reform. Now what?

Some of the measures take effect immediately, while other reforms will take longer.

Those reforms to deferred action won’t be fully implemented for six months, after applications can be accepted. While Obama waits and hopes, congress will take some action that will be more comprehensive and lasting.

So when will we see what?

1. Relief For 4 Million From Fear of Deportation – Immediately.

While they can’t file their application for 6-months, those who qualify for deferred action through a son or daughter that is a U.S. citizen will feel immediate relief.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are instructed to “immediately begin identifying persons in their custody” who meet the criteria; as well as consider the new criteria for “all individuals encountered.”

So that means parents of U.S. citizen can now go about their lives free from constant fear of deportation.

For those who qualify for expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Dreamer status, those applications can be filed in 90-days.

2. President Selling His plan – Immediately.

Starting today, president Obama hits the road to sell his plan to the American public and put pressure on the GOP to get something passed in Congress.

He speaks at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas—the same place he visited nearly two years ago to lay out his principles for reform. But it’s not just the everyday Americans he is trying to get on board.

“I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution,” he said in his speech. “And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.”

So expect him to continue putting pressure on the GOP to get something done.

3. Advocate Groups Will Organize Sign-Ups and Seminars – This Weekend.

Almost immediately, immigration groups will begin holding information sessions to help those impacted understand what they need to do to gain deferred action, as well as who exactly will qualify.

Also, don’t expect them to slow down their efforts. While claiming success for President Obama finally acting, most groups are continuing to push for more action to include those left out and get congress to move forward.

4. New Staffing and Resources at Border – Coming Weeks.

In the coming days we should get a better picture of the new staffing and resources for the border and when exactly they go into effect.

We do know there will be a new task force formed with made up of the coast guard, customs and border protection, immigration and customs enforcement and US Citizenship and immigration services.

According to a Department of Homeland Security memo, within 90 days there should be a realigning of personnel to accomplish these task forces, all while maintaining the “the surge of resources” sent to the U.S.-Mexico border during the unaccompanied minors crisis over the summer.

We can also expect to see an overall change in the priorities, as outlined by the President, for CBP and ICE.

Their first priority for deportation: those that are threats to national security, followed by those with three or more misdemeanors, and lastly those “who have been issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014.”

5. Credit Card Payments for Naturalization Fee — End of 2015.

It’s not cheap to become a citizen! The cost of naturalization is about $680, but you can’t currently pay for it with a credit card, which may be why so many permanent residents never take the next step to become citizens

Come the end of 2015, you can use your credit card.

6. Adjustments to High Tech Worker Visas – It’s Not Clear.

In a memo to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson outlined steps to improve the backlog for green cards and visas for high skilled workers, but no timetable is given.

What we will see, however, is a modernization to the process. That means the Department of State and USCIS will work together more closely so temporary status doesn’t expire as quickly.

Additionally, the 2007 expansion that allows students in STEM to stay an additional 17-months, for a total of 29-months on their “optional practical training” visa could also be increased.

“I direct that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and USCIS develop regulations for notice and comment to expand the degree programs eligible for OPT and extend the time period and use of OPT for foreign STEM students and graduates, consistent with law,” the memo outlines.
 
<div style='text-align:center'>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=281&width=560&height=419&playList=518527140'></script>
<br/>
</div>​
 

Well Playa,

The President has taken some action and its up to the CONGRESS to make its move.

It (its individual key members; or the body as a whole) will either do what they've been
doing since this President took office: do nothing; obstruct; and obfuscate by filing lawsuits,
spreading fear, lies & hate; or

Pass immigration legislation.



Which will it be ???



 
8FMSN.AuSt.91.jpeg
 
Re: Impeach Obama

<img src="http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2014/141121-conservative-pundits-have-incredible-emotional-meltdown.jpg" width="600">


associated_press_logo.jpg
2 GOP Presidents Acted Unilaterally On Immigration

ZReaganObamaBush.jpg


by ANDREW TAYLOR | Nov. 17, 2014 | http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1f5e...eagan-bush-also-acted-alone-shield-immigrants


WASHINGTON (AP) — Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.

Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of a sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul and at a time when "amnesty" was not a dirty word. Their actions were less controversial because there was a consensus in Washington that the 1986 law needed a few fixes and Congress was poised to act on them. Obama is acting as the country — and Washington — are bitterly divided over a broken immigration system and what to do about 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

Obama wants to extend protection from deportation to millions of immigrant parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and expand his 2-year-old program that shields immigrants brought illegally to this country as children.

A tea party-influenced GOP is poised to erupt, if and when Obama follows through on his promise.

"The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me," said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an outspoken opponent of relaxing U.S. immigration law. "It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of the American people."

Some Republicans have even raised the possibility of impeachment.

Here's a timeline of then and now:

—1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy. Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.

—2012. In July, the Obama administration announces a new policy curbing deportations for certain immigrants brought illegally to the country as kids. The policy, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), applies to people younger than 30 who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and meet other criteria such as graduating high school. It has now granted two-year deportation reprieves and work permits to nearly 600,000 people.

—2013-2014 (Congress). <span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>After months of work, the Senate in June 2013 passes, 68-32, a huge immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants who meet strict criteria.</b></span>

<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><B>THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FAILS TO ACT ON THE PASSED 68-32 IMMIGRATION BILL</B></span>

In a televised interview with Telemundo, Obama says expanding the DACA program to cover the parents of children allowed to remain in the country under the program "would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option."

—2014. Frustrated by Congress' inability to act on immigration, Obama announces in June that he'll use executive powers to address other elements of the flawed immigration system. Like Bush, Obama is expected to extend deportation protections to families of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Obama's anticipated action would not award legal status, but it would offer temporary protection from deportation to up to 5 million people, as well as the possibility of obtaining a work permit. He delayed action until after Election Day. On Monday, Democratic leaders sent a letter to Obama saying they strongly support his plans to take executive action on immigration.

​

<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="8"></hr>

ibnjhhmiyb0cP0.jpg


agreed-black.jpg
 
Could Obama be impeached over immigration order?

Could Obama be impeached over immigration order?
Many Republicans are furious about reports the president is considering executive action that would remove the threat of deportation for upward of 5 million immigrants in the US illegally.
Christian Science Monitor
By Peter Grier November 14, 2014 12:38 PM

Could President Obama be impeached over his coming unilateral move to overhaul US immigration enforcement?

Many Republicans are furious about reports that the president is considering executive action that would remove the threat of deportation for upward of 5 million immigrants in the US illegally. Announcement of such a move could come as early as next week, according to numerous news reports.

Given the level of anger, it was inevitable that some critics would start throwing around the “I” word. Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Texas said last week that it would be a “consideration.” On Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Thursday, right-leaning commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Obama’s immigration order as outlined in the media would be “an impeachable offense.”

As Mr. Krauthammer noted, the legal basis for Obama’s move would be the ability of the executive branch to exercise discretion in the prosecution of crimes. That’s an accepted legal practice.

But in this case the order to exercise discretion, and not pursue immigration cases against millions of people otherwise subject to getting kicked out of the country, amounts to a unilateral rewriting of the law in question, according to Krauthammer.

Prosecutorial discretion is meant for a case or two at a time, he said on Fox. “It was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law. And that’s exactly what’s happening here,” Krauthammer said.

Some legal experts don’t agree with that analysis. They say the executive branch has broad powers of prosecutorial discretion. The federal government’s law enforcement resources are limited and courts typically give the federal government wide latitude to decide the best way to deploy those resources.

In this case, the administration would be deferring action against the parents of children who are US citizens or legal residents. According to reports, the adults in question would have to have lived in the US at least five years to be eligible, thought that standard is not yet set in stone.

In essence, the White House would be putting these people at the bottom of the list of people eligible to be deported. There are some 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US. The Department of Homeland Security has the resources to deport only a few hundred thousand of those people annually. Somebody will be the on the bottom of the list; the question is how to decide that.

“As a legal matter, [Obama’s] discretion is really broad. As a political matter, I think it’s much more constrained,” University of California, Los Angeles law professor Hiroshi Motomura told Bloomberg Businessweek earlier this year.

That’s the crux of the impeachment matter. In impeachment proceedings, the House weighs whether a president has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors,” in the words of the Constitution.

That’s as much a political decision as a legal one. There’s little consensus on what constitutes a “high crime” in this case. If the question is “Can the president be impeached over immigration?” the answer is “yes.” The House decides impeachment grounds.

The more relevant question, however, may be “Will the House impeach Obama over immigration?” The answer to that is almost certainly “no.”

The only GOP voices calling for impeachment are figures safe behind Fox News contracts, or fringe lawmakers. The majority of House and Senate Republicans think impeachment could quite possibly turn the country against their party. In July, House Speaker John Boehner ruled out impeaching Obama on grounds of general overreach of authority. Representative Boehner called impeachment talk “a scam” perpetuated by Democrats for their own ends.

The real fight here may not involve impeachment, but shutting down the government. Conservatives want the GOP to include provisions blocking Obama’s immigration actions on bills to fund the government.

Such a strategy would risk a White House veto, and another government shutdown. But most in the Republican leadership oppose such a move. For one, incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has said that’s not happening.

“We’re not shutting the government down or threatening to default on the national debt,” Senator McConnell said in the wake of the GOP’s big mid-term victories.

So what can the GOP do? No impeachment, no government shutdown – is every big gun off the table?

One possible strategy would be to give Democrats a view of the future, writes Allahpundit at the right-leaning Hot Air site. Hold a press conference and say that a future GOP president will gladly accept the precedent of Obama’s expansion of executive power – by using that power to unilaterally impose a flat income tax on America.

“Let’s make this threat . . . if only so that liberals know what’s in store for them down the road when they’re busy celebrating Obama’s authoritarianism next Friday,” writes Allahpundit.

https://news.yahoo.com/could-obama-impeached-over-immigration-order-173840884.html
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top