Thread: NO DEAL - OBAMA: NO BORDER SECURITY BEFORE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

NO DEAL - OBAMA: NO BORDER SECURITY BEFORE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

by JOEL B. POLLAK

29 Jan 2013, 4:50 AM PDT
President Barack Obama is set to reject the key compromise at the heart of a bipartisan deal on immigration reform announced by eight Senators yesterday. The president, who will deliver an address later today in Las Vegas, NV outlining his own immigration ideas, is reported to oppose linking a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, a Democrat demand, to stronger law enforcement and better border security, a Republican demand.

The president will apparently argue that the administration has met reasonable goals on enforcing current immigration legislation, and that additional security will merely create new obstacles to legalizing the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants thought to be living in the United States. The federal government accelerated deportations in the first years of the Obama presidency, and sent new personnel to patrol the southwestern border.

However, starting last year, the Obama administration declined to enforce existing law regarding the so-called “Dreamers”--immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children. The election-year move drew praise from Hispanic groups but preempted congressional legislation, and brought criticism from proponents of immigration reform, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who objected to the president’s clear circumvention of Congress.

The essence of the deal struck by Rubio with Senate colleagues in the “Gang of Eight” or “immigration eight” is that a path to citizenship would be contingent upon meeting law enforcement criteria. Republican critics of the Senate deal--including some who are otherwise supportive of immigration reform--argued that the deal would cause “instant legalization” of illegal immigrants, while the border security provisions would take time.

Rubio has proposed dealing with that problem by suggesting that the reform package be broken up into several pieces of legislation rather than one bill that would pass the citizenship and law enforcement provisions simultaneously. A previous reform law, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, was ineffective precisely because it made legalization and border security simultaneous, rather than making the latter prior to the former.

The president is said to share Democrats’ objections to a series of legislation that would formally put law enforcement first, and prefers one comprehensive bill. But he will also go even further today, and reject the compromise outright.

The president may feel he does not have to compromise, having won re-election. But in blocking the quid pro quo at the heart of the Senate deal, and insisting on a path to citizenship without additional security, he may well scuttle a chance at reform--again.

That may have been the president’s intention from the beginning, and the reason that the “Gang of Eight” acted yesterday to upstage the president.
As Breitbart News noted yesterday, Democrats have long pushed for “comprehensive” immigration reform, but have also blocked reform when passage was possible, as in 2005-7, since retaining the issue as a grievance motivates Hispanic voters and immigrant-oriented interest groups.
By rejecting the citizenship-for-security compromise, the president may hope to focus media criticism on Republicans in Congress, who largely oppose a new amnesty for illegal immigrants. If the past is any indication, Obama will use that opposition to label Republicans as racist.

Once again, politics will trump progress--and Republicans, who were split on the Senate deal, may well thank Obama for sparing them a difficult choice.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/29/No-Deal-Obama-Set-to-Reject-Security-as-Condition-for-Citizenship-in-Immigration-Address-Today

All Countries have requirements to become Citizens. Most involve not becomming reliant on government and being able to support your self (having your own moneyto become a citizen) not comming to a country looking for work or money... Even Mexico !


MEXICO VS. UNITED STATES: MEXICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE*TOUGHER « FactReal

Video on Mexico's Laws for immigration

HYPOCRISY

Originally Posted by posylady

Video on Mexico's Laws for immigration

HYPOCRISY

--------------------------------------------------

calderon – mexico law

I say we play by Mexico's own rules ..

[QUOTE]Mexico's Tough LawsThat the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.


What say you, Mr. Calderon?


Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 3

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 11

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Read more: Mexico's Tough Laws (visa, NAFTA, illegal immigrants, prison) - City-Data Forum