Obama deportation proposal could cost $585 million
Barack Obama
FILE - In this June 15, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama talks about granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. The Obama administration's new plan to grant temporary work permits to many young, illegal immigrants who otherwise could be deported may cost the government more than $585 million and require hiring hundreds of new federal employees to process more than 1 million anticipated requests, according to internal Homeland Security Department plans obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
15 comments:
Rules of Conduct
Happening Now...
-
Tuesday 5/21/2013
-
Monday 5/20/2013
-
Sunday 5/19/2013
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Centrist posted at 2:53 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Sounds like a good plan, especially since it will largely pay for itself. Let's hear it for our government (country)...Hipp, Hipp, Hooray!
Dale Whiting posted at 2:58 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Humm!
On the one hand, we have a program which pays for itself, both in covering the costs of administration and in generating permits to work legally, collecting social security, etc. And on the other hand we could pay the costs of deportation and loose money.
Now I see the logic in Mitt Romney's hiring illegals to do his gardening. Way to go, Mitt!
chuckles3 posted at 3:42 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Yep, let's have another protected class of people who get special rights that average citizens and legal applicants don't. Exactly what this country is all about.
And you Big Government types that actually think this will pay for itself, I give you EVERY Government program in the last 80 years...Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, Amtrak, Post Office...lol LOL LOL LOL LOL
Engaged Voter posted at 3:43 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Actually Dale, we would LOSE money. I don't think the article mentioned anything about loose money.
My issue is the wording used:
"The government estimated that as many as 890,000 immigrants in the first year would be immediately eligible to avoid deportation."
"Once immigrants submit their applications"
IMMIGRANTS have no need to fear deportation. IMMIGRANTS are here legally...this article is dealing with ILLEGAL ALIENS, yet the term doesn't appear once in the story. HMMMMM
Engaged Voter posted at 3:51 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
As for not costing us any money...history shows us otherwise.
That and our former traitor-governor's own words:
"The plans said there would be no waivers, but Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that the government would grant waivers "in very deserving cases."
Now if we could just get clarification on what constitutes a "very deserving case" - but I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.
American Socialist posted at 4:19 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Thats right EVT....keep that fear pumper flowing...
The Illegals are comming to get you!!!
Centrist posted at 4:23 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Chuckles,
What do you mean by a protected class of people with special rights? It seems to me this law is designed to create a process where those who are PRESENTLY receiving special rights (unlawful entry) are being forced to pay $465 to become unprotected, ie., a citizen with equal rights. Am I missing something?
Also, your citations to government programs is laughable. You do realize that the post office ran "in the black" during all the years it took government money and it was not until Bush signed a law taking millions from the PO's budget and redistributing it to other agencies that it "lost" money. THe truth it is that it runs in the blakc but now pays for other government services.
Would you like to stand behind your conclusory statements with facts or are you just another "hater" on this site who wants to complain in igonrance?
Centrist posted at 4:29 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Engaged,
Lose money? How so?
You are incorrect to complain about the use of the term immigrant. An immigrant is simply, "someone who moves to another country." It implies nothing about lawful or unlawful means of movement. In fact, before the right wing nut jobs started insisting ont he use illegal alien, the terms used (correctly I might add) were "legal immigrant" and "illegal immigrant".
Also, no one has said it will not "cost" us money so your objection in this regard is misplaced. What has been said is that it will largely pay for itself. When a country (or person for that matter) has a problem, it is not reasonable to expect you will fix the problem for free.
You are not a freeloader, are you? You want people to pay to solve their problems, right? so, in this case, the government paying to solve its problem but doing so in a way that places a large part of the bill on the illegal immigrant (who, by the way, was brought here as a child and had no say in that matter) is a good thing right?
Now, you are going to be tempted to say, "They should just go home." But, don't do that as it will just show more of your ignorance and I will be forced to point it out.
Engaged Voter posted at 5:21 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Dear Centrist,
"Lose money? How so?"
The same way every other government program (even those advertised as being able to pay for themselves) has. Would you like a history lesson?
"no one has said it will not "cost" us money "
Dale did, and it was his comment I was responding to. Pay attention next time.
As for the semantic game regarding the word Immigrant...I guess I will lower the vocabulary used and simply refer to them as "felonous illegal invaders" - is that clear enough for you?
The fact that posters like American Socialist have to slander me and make false claims speaks volumes about their character.
Centrist posted at 6:05 pm on Tue, Jul 24, 2012.
Engaged,
Please do not lie to us in your posts. No where int he article does it say there is no "cost" to us, in fact the title says it will cost 585 million.
Yes, I'll take the history lesson now if you are willing to give it...
The "semantics" as you call it was my attempt to correct your attempt to correct the author. You were wrong to suggest the word immigrant was more correct. Just admit that and we can go on. And, by the way, the phrase felonous illegal" is redundant. Sorry, these are more than semantics. If you are going to post a comment, you should be willing to correct what is improperly stated. Your an American right. Proud of the fact you went to American schools and got an american education. Right? Well, show the world what that means. Post a comment you can be proud of.
Jesus Christo de Nogales posted at 10:11 am on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.
Help end the illegal Mexican occupation of the United States of America. Vote for candidates that support deportation and not pathway to citizenship. It is the only way to prevent the total destructiom of the US. If you want a work visa, apply for it while you reside in your home country. Those obtaining work visas can enter the US by legal Port of Rntry and can not bring family members. Visas would have a fixed time.
Centrist posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.
Jesus,
While your comments and suggestions are very rationale indeeed, the problem is not as bad as you suggest. "only way to prevent the total destruction..." Come on. In the end, unlawful entry into the US impacts our economy only slightly in comparison to other federal policies.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I hope you don't have as much anxiety over this as you appear to have.
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:05 pm on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.
So, not only do they get to "cut the line", but the US taxpayer has to pay EVEN MORE for it? I'm not racist, I'm against the government using my money to allow a bunch of criminals to remain in the USA when they didn't EARN THE RIGHT like LEGAL IMMIGRANTS....
Cas Lee posted at 7:50 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 22nd debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal gov’t economic regulation and role; healthcare; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
3rd Romney-Obama debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Syria; Egypt; U.S. world role; military spending; Israel; Iran; Afghanistan; China; U.S. national security threats.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
Romney and Ryan won all 4 debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate and Romney slightly took the win both in the 2nd and 3rd debates.
In the 3rd debate (unlike in prior debates), Obama reflected his weakness and disrespect by interrupting Romney a lot and using too many “one-line quips” to try to denigrate Romney.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude behavior during the debate (often interrupted Ryan, laughed when Ryan talked, pointed his finger). Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth disrespected Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, credibility, and leadership.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan, with their no-nonsense and methodic approach to solving America’s problems, are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Best regards,
Cas Lee
delia posted at 7:59 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
[wink]apolitano said new information about the program should be made available by Aug. 1. She has said immigrants would generally not be detained by immigration authorities while their application is pending.chnlove