default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Minor changes in policy should not be used to inflame a political issue

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:32 am, Tue May 8, 2012.

Regarding the column by Wade Heath in the April 5 edition of the Lodi News-Sentinel, I would like to point out the glaring inaccuracy in his opening paragraph.

Mr. Heath stated, "The Department of Homeland Security posted in an announcement online on Monday that they would be issuing 'unlawful presence waivers' to illegal immigrants in order to stop them from being deported."

The proposal actually states: "USCIS now proposes to amend its regulations to allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are physically present in the United States to request provisional unlawful presence waivers under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prior to departing from the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications." Previously, individuals would file this waiver after their departure from the U.S.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem. I am sure no one disagrees with that statement. However, for a columnist to either deliberately or inadvertently twist the intent of a minor change in policy that leads his readership to believe that special considerations are being given to certain individuals in order to prevent their deportation is reprehensible. If done deliberately, one can easily believe that the purpose is solely to inflame an already contentious issue. If done without having the correct information, it can only be interpreted as faulty journalism.

A correction to this misinformation on Mr. Heath's part is due to the LNS readership. I sincerely hope he will double-check his future columns to prevent this type of error.

Joanne Bobin


Reference Links

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:55 pm on Mon, May 14, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1534

    Joe I watched your video and was outraged. I don't believe all I see on you tube so I did some checking. The loophole that allows this refund is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. The legislation that created the additional child tax credit was part of the Bush Tax Cuts these acts were passed almost unanimously by the republicans who also used reconciliation to get them through the senate. Set to expire in 2010 Republican Congressman David Camp sponsored a resolution to extend the cuts, this resolution was co-sponsored by 5 other republicans and signed into law by Obama. These cuts are schedeled to expire at the end of the year can we finally agree to end the madness of the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 11:40 am on Sun, May 13, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Stevie: Ever heard of bringing a knife to a gun fight? How about a shotgun to a zip-gun fight? Or maybe a shotgun to a 22 fight? Don't have to be a good shot with a shot gun.

    There was an incident in Oakland a few years back where 56 shots were fired and no blood drawn.

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 2:27 pm on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HriqN3f0-EQ Good information...and you are right this is happening nation wide. This does not count the amount spent by illegal aliens in our hospitals, schools, prisons and courts. BO's outrage is in the vote.

  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:14 pm on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1849

    We need more Illegal aliens in America. You know if this is going on in Indiana, it is nationwide. They don't have a clue what the total is, but you can bet it is even more staggering than what this report shows. Wonder where Obama's outrage is on this issue?


  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:16 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    As a self described "intellectual" why are you unable to acknowledge your own willful ignorance? My "thoughts" or "intelligence" are quite irrellevant as the topic of Ms. Bobins letter is unlawful presence waivers. If you can read through this thread and conclude that willful ignorance isn't being predominantly displayed perhaps you aren't the self described intellectual you claim to be...

  • Mike Adams posted at 6:28 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1399

    Perhaps weasel could have an original thought rather than trying to come off as an intellectual who is of only normal intellegence. To wit:

    "Depending on the nature and strength of an individual’s pre-existing beliefs, ..."


  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:14 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Perhaps Ms Bobin should retract her malicious statements that are completely false...
    I am calm and relaxed. I simply am telling you what I intend if certain results of your behavior take place.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:10 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric... sorry, your comments are silly.

    Many people including myself see a big difference between a threat.. and a promise. If yo do not, that is your problem, not mind. I think you need to better educate yourself as to the difference between a threat and promise as used in the real world. Your conclusion is as usual, wrong.

    I was simply attempting to be clear and precise. No other intent or motive.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:56 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Perhaps you could "thoughtfully consider" the fact that few of your comments have had anything to do with your own letter concerning unlawful presence waivers...LOL

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:40 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Perhaps Mr. Baumbach should thoughfully consider his comments and causes and shut himself down when he becomes too impassioned. Passion goes a long way toward creating the wrong impression. One can only fault themselves.

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:24 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrb: Again with the half-truths: Threat: warning, hazard, danger, risk : an indication that something unpleasant or dangerous is going to happen. Eg: tread lightly (warning), the ice is thin (danger), the stock market is volatile (risk) or slippery when wet (hazard).

    What would you do if someone came to your job...accused you (falsely) of being a child abuser...got you fired and you lost your home? Whom would you say was at fault and should pay for your loses? Tread lightly young man, the ice is thin, the pathway to the pond slippery and your stock in business is at risk.

    Go into business for yourself and see how much you will toleate when so much depends upon business being successful.

  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:05 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1534

    This such classic DB BS

    Promise - a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one

    Threat - a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace

    The only difference between a promise and a threat is that a threat inflicts punishment or injury. Since you promised to sue Joanne, that would be considered a threat. Try to man-up Darrell and stand by what you say instead of weaselling you way out of your own statements.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:50 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms bobin stated...(with the exception of the one recently in which you threatened to sue me

    Ms Bobin, please be accurate and do not mislead... I stated that if your malicious false statements ( that you claim I support pedophiles) leads to economic loss that was caused by your malicious statements, that then I would sue you.. its simply a statement of what will happen... not intended to be a threat,but a promise.
    If there is no economic loss or I cannot prove it was caused by you, I would not waste my time in court.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:54 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Please....since I don't keep files on the comments ANYONE in this forum makes (with the exception of the one recently in which you threatened to sue me), I won't list all of the conspiracies Mr. Liebich has discussed here.

    If anyone is seeing your pink bunnies and little green men, it is he.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:48 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Really? A Mexican prison gang was hanging out at Lodi Lake?

    Meant to add as a side note to that story - No, I do not believe they should have physically attacked these four bigots either, but I do understand their outrage at those idiots talking to little 6 and 7 year olds in that manner.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:11 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...Thank you, Mr. Baumbach, for bringing that up. No pink bunnies (have no idea where you got that from anyway), but bigots do abound

    You are very welcome Ms Bobin... As far as the pink bunnies, you know very well what it symbolizes as it relates to seeing “anything” around every corner no matter if little green men, pink bunnies or bigots. ( since it is not rational)...it's why you see them. Since you are an articulate intelligent woman, just use the gift god gave you and draw conclusions.

    I think this all odd though that you at every opportunity attempt to portray Mr Liebich as a conspiracy nut when you yourself are fairly close to being one.

    I hope you remember, it was you that first mentioned a pink rabbit... I simply carried on what you started.

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 7:03 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Stevie...everytime you write like a real person ... I like you more. We kept ours in the trunk. With our hunting vests and shells. Go by my mom's home in Woodbridge and check out the fireplace...it use to be in the stucco until we put in some new windows.

  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:47 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2465

    That said, I grew up 20 years after you and its funny the way the more things change, the more they stay the same, particularly for teen boys in a small town with nothing to do on a Friday night. I can remember being reassured a couple times when we got into scrapes in Stockton by the fact that the shotguns from afternoon rabbit hunting were still in the back of the car.

    Good times....

  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:43 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2465

    I am trying to picture this Pat. You are surrounded by men with knives, chains and guns and you surprise them by pulling out your shotguns from.....where?

    As someone who has (in other states) carried a concealed weapon, I can tell you that the in seam 12 gauge holster can be a tad bit uncomfortable for a night on the town.

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 7:03 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    ...pulled out our shotguns...

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 7:01 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Oh wow! msb: I remember back in 1968 when the Mexican Mafia tried to beat the snot out of me at the Lake...there was seven of them and 3 of us...we won (Bob Luna was there). I remember when they came by my mother and father's house a few days later and blew out their front window with a shot gun blast from a moving car...the pellets hit the brick fireplace as well (the indents are still there). I remember a few months later when their girlfriends threatened my sister with razor blades (Mrs Melby intervened and expelled the girls)(my sister would have kicked their a--es in a fair fight). I remember a few months later when they tried to beat me with a chain (Mr Ron Braden intervened). I remember when they surrounded us in downtown Lodi...with knives, guns and chains...we pulled had been duck hunting...the LPD showed up a few minutes later (Off Bob Wetzel was one of them). Please...don't tell me about bad behavior...seems to me that maybe the Hispanics could have just ignored the comments. Sad story otherwise.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:50 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Correct! I believe it was in "Dreams of My Other Father, the TRUE Story of Jimmy Carter's Lustful Heart."

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:45 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Maple - it is obvious from your comment that, although you claim to have read the entire proposal, you did not comprehend it.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:53 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Thank you, Mr. Baumbach, for bringing that up. No pink bunnies (have no idea where you got that from anyway), but bigots do abound.

    Witnessed an incident on Sunday at Lodi Lake - Hispanic family was picnicing in the Nature Area and a middle-aged anglo woman and her 20-something daughter who were accompanied by 2 men became incensed that 2 little girls had taken too long in the porta-potty and the older woman told them - "why don't you go back to Mexico you f-ing little s p_ _ s." The girls were around 6 or 7.

    Needless to say that when the kids reported the comment to their parents some serious fisticuffs ensued. And when the police began arriving, guess who tried to run away, and with good reason? They were all picked up on outstanding warrants. And no, it wasn't the Hispanics.

    Ah, Lodi! Where the entertainment is fascinating...and free!

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:05 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    AL: I did not think anything bad. The clarification was for those who would accuse me of not reading it...msb, mrl, mrb, mra...that crowd. People like DB, JK, AL, and even sometimes MrSS read the issues. I live by the tenet...know more about your enemy (opposition) than they know about themselves. Nooo pwobwem...

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:36 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated... What continued ignorance, Mr. Liebich? Oh, just to let you know, little green men are now collecting the trash in Lodi.

    Actually Ms Bobin is incorrect about little green men collecting trash. I have verified substantiated proof that the bigots, with pet pink bunnies , that Ms Bobin has seen often around every corner (as she described), has been taking the trash in Lodi for their own purposes.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:55 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I wasn't suggesting you hadn't read it. I was agreeing with your suggestion that those who want to discuss peanut butter should read it.

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:39 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Andrew: I did read the entire proposal. What I printed was the pertinent part.

    msb: Taking from one child and giving to another is NOT humanitarian. Nor is forcing children to flood in to the border states with medical problems from Mexico, Nicaragua and other S Amer countries to be housed and treated by the citizens of this country. Texas alone has over 50,000 of them right now.

    There is no "outrage" from me...only concern for those who are trying to become legal...you do not cut in line for something this important. You especially do not cut in line for 11 Million. I am sorry msb but "minor language changes" DO make a difference and can cause great consternation...just ask the Native Americans about the "Treaties" they signed.

    Legal will an il in front of it is just a minor language change?

  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:33 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2465

    Ms Bobin, Barack Obama admitted peanut butter is not made of peanuts in his writings.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:23 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Thank-you for proving my point.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:16 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    What continued ignorance, Mr. Liebich?

    Oh, just to let you know, little green men are now collecting the trash in Lodi. I think this may be a plot you would like to investigate. Space aliens are no doubt combing through unsuspecting citizens' trash to find vital information so they can clone them and create an identical Lodi colony on Plant Liebich.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:10 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Maple: I'm not exactly sure WHAT you are outraged about. Please explain.

    And a BO done deal?

    As I have had to explain to Mr. Liebich, who, if you told him peanut butter was made from peanuts, would not believe it, the president nor Congress have to OK changes to immigration policy. This authority was given to Homeland Security during the Bush administration when Bush consolidated all of the agencies into one big Homeland Security meatball.

    I HAVE read the entire "proposed" change. Overall, it is just a humanitarian effort to prevent families long established here, albeit illegally, to gain legal status in a shorter period of time and to be separated for a shorter period of time.

    I suppose, though, that if YOU are opposed to humanitarian solutions to these issues, then you should be outraged.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:01 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I would suggest going to the Federal Register and reading the entire rule change as well Mr. Maple but I have frequented this forum long enough to know that simply won't happen.

    The ignorance continually displayed here can only be described as willfull.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:49 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    That's why it's called a "proposed change" Ms.Bobin. The effective date has yet to be specified.

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:53 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    msb: From the UCIS:

    WASHINGTON—On March 30, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register outlining its plan to reduce the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives (spouses, children, parents) while those family members are in the process of obtaining an immigrant visa to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

    The Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver is NOT in effect. The provisional unlawful presence waiver will not be available to potential applicants until an effective date is specified in the final rule USCIS will publish later this year in the Federal Register. USCIS has published a notice of proposed rulemaking and will consider all comments received as part of that process before publishing a final rule.

    "...until and effective date..." What is an effective date and what does that mean?

    I suggest you go to the Federal Register and READ the entire rule change: One interesting part:

    USCIS will begin accepting provisional waiver applications only after a final rule is issued and the procedural change becomes effective.

    DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before June 1, 2012.

    Did you know this? I would venture to guess that 90% of the citizens did not.

    Sounds like a done BO deal to me...votes anyone???

  • Steve Schmidt posted at 3:42 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2465

    Chuckle.... my other brother. I thought you had left us.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:13 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...However, for a columnist to either deliberately or inadvertently twist the intent of a minor change in policy that leads his readership to believe that special considerations are being given to certain individuals in order to prevent their deportation is reprehensible.

    Good letter Ms Bobin. Good to see you express your opinion in a thoughtful way.
    I do however disagree on one point. I would think it much more an offense to deliberately twist the intent as opposed to an inadvertent mistake.

    I am also a little surprised that you would feel offended and think it reprehensible for someone to make an inadvertent error or mistake compared to the inflammatory inaccurate intentional letter Ms Neely submitted.

    Overall... enjoyed reading you letter and hope to read more.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:58 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    "Circumvent the Constitution?" Please cite the clause in the US Constitution or Amendments that speak to immigration law.

    Letter writer's note:

    I originally submitted this letter on April 6th, and after submitting it again on April 17th and making 2 inquiries to the Editor, it has finally been published.

    Strange that something submitted over the Internet LTE forum was "lost."

    Thanks to Mr. Hanner for finally getting this published.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:59 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Andrew is this a confirmation of what has already been said? Or am I experiencing an echo?
    BTW I followed your link to the EIR, Lyndons libertarian site, and found it very interesting including a discussion on A Hamilton and how the constitution was built around his banking principles. I didn't read it all since it was very long and it was late.Your referal to the site was for the Colin Powell UN testimony which also was very long but it was dated and already familiar. I still love that chart of polls.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:29 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Yes, Mr. Kindseth, reprehensible. Unless you believe that good journalism should be based on printing falsehoods.

    Mr. Liebich - see my link. Unless you believe the the USCIS is involved in another conspiracy, then I think we should take their word (on their own website) that the proposed change in NOT in effect.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:14 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Talk about an awkward family reunion, Richard Mellon Scaife is related by marriage to "Bunny" Mellon, another member of the billionaire Mellon family.

    Bunny is the benefactor who contributed 900K to former Senator John Edwards to help him cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter.

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:06 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Oh BTW Joanne I did not know that about Joe Guzzardi either. You are a very handy person to have around. Only small foolish people will criticize you.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:04 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    According to the summary of the rule as posted on the Federal Register, the new rule is being implemented, because the existing waiver application process "can take well over a year, and the prolonged separation from immediate relatives can cause many U.S. citizens to experience extreme humanitarian and financial hardships." Come on, folks! We are talking about people who came here illegally, and we are supposed to not only ignore the laws on the books, but also create new ones that make it easier to break the law?

  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:57 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Eric is right Judicial Watch tries to say they are nonpartisan like Fox says they are fair and balanced. Surely no one believes this. Judicial Watch seems to occupy itself with Freedom of Information Act requests and complain when they don't come fast enough and then start accusing the Obama administration of being corrupt and hiding something because of the delay. I guess they never made a request during the Bush administration which was notorious for extremely long delays if they fulfilled them at all.
    Thanks Joanne for the JW ownership information I didn't know that.

  • John Kindseth posted at 8:35 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    "Reprehensible" ???

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:23 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    As for Judicial Watch - this is a far right organization mostly funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Pittsburgh Times-Review (emphasis on MELLON) that has sued everyone from Dick Cheney to the US Senate.

    Strangely (not really) enough, Mellon Scaife is also a large contributor to Californians for Population Control (CAPS), the organization that Joe Guzzardi writes/wrote for.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:56 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I have tried to explain what an "unlawful presence waiver" is to Mr. Liebich on more than one occasion and he is either unable to comprehend it or is too busy concentrating on conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and the US being behind the 9/11 attacks.

    As far as Wade Heath's interpretation - this provision has NO relation whatsoever with preventing deportation. FACT.

    Here is a link to the USCIS website - this proposed provision is not even in effect.


    As for "President Obama circumventing immigration law," that is a flat out lie. Obama had nothing to do with proposing this minor change. Under his administration, more illegals have been deported than under any other president.

    Ronald Reagan and GW Bush were much more friendly to illegals - witness the amnesty granted during Reagan's administration and the great relationship that Bush had with President Fox and his proposed guest worker program.

  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:43 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1534

    A look at judicial watch shows they claim to be a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation I’m curious Andrew I thought you were against both sides of politics? Can a person or organization claim to be conservative and non-partisan? Judicialwatch has listed Obama in there top ten corrupt politicians for the last 5 years. Hillary has made the top five longer than that and as far as I can tell Bush never made the list. Judicialwatch is currently trying to prove that Obamacare is illegal. Non-partisan I wonder.

  • Mike Adams posted at 6:24 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1399

    Remember that the link that the weasel has supplied only represents an opinion on the law/regulation, and not the actual law/regulation.

    A common form of decit used by the other side: Make it sound official and the Rush's minions will gobble it up.

    I guess that's the big difference between us and them: We think it through, they just parrot..

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:18 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    According to Judicial Watch Ms. Bobin's interpretation of these new unlawful presence waivers is not nearly as accurate as Mr. Heath's.

    Isn't being illegally within our borders is a crime? What does Ms. Bobin think our immigration courts do? They deport people that broke our country's immigration laws and are here ILLEGALLY!

    If the "presence" is "unlawful" isn't it just a little bit stupid to grant a waiver? Illegal means illegal, right? Unlawful means unlawful, doesn't it?

    Granting illegal immigrants "unlawful presence waivers" through DHS in order to avoid US immigration laws is not something the U.S. Constitution permits. Ms. Bobin should apologize to all law-abiding immigrants.

    Call it what you will: stealth amnesty, backdoor amnesty or "unlawful presence waivers". It's just one more example of President Obama's desire to ignore existing immigration law and circumvent the U.S. Constitution.


Recent Comments

Posted 17 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: Vote for a better future for all

We really only have one race that will affect us on the federal level and that race will do little to change the make-up of the House. Ther…


Posted 19 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Chuckle.... so you are saying that only 99.3% of the relevant experts disagree with you? Angie, I think you have succeeded in proving my p…


Posted 19 hours ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Vote for a better future for all

Mr. Viall, are you saying that blatant disregard for American citizen rights and the Constitution are not the stellar qualifications of a c…


Posted 19 hours ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Tim Katzakian responds to Jerry…

Those that CAN, do, those that CAN'T, complain. No CHANEY for City Council signs anywhere in Lodi.


Posted 19 hours ago by Robert Molle.

article: LAPD deploys fewer patrol officers than…

Race card being pulled in 3...2...1....



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists