Obama grants legal status to young illegal immigrants

[jimnyc]

I wonder how the libs will defend his lies this time? If your party sucks so bad and the American people won't back your initiatives, just do them anyway via different means. He outright said in the past, likely as a political move, that he couldn't even do something like this.

Discretion he says? How about the discretion to uphold the law? What the hell is the point of laws if someone will use discretion and avoid the law? Between this and fighting Florida over legitimate voter purging, this administration just really doesn't care about any laws.

I suppose the only good thing about this is that those who take him up on this offer, and get jobs, will hopefully be taxed in our system.


The Obama administration said Friday it will stop deporting most illegal immigrant students and young adults in a campaign-year move that escalates the immigration debate to the fore.

For years the administration had said it didn’t have the authority to make such a move, saying it couldn’t decide to stop deporting wide categories of people on its own without approval from Congress.

But on Friday President Obama says administration now interprets the law to give it the discretion.

“Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people,” Mr. Obama said in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden. “Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.”

Mr. Obama said the action was meant to be a temporary fix for our “broken immigration system” and urged Congress to pass a more permanent solution such as the DREAM Act.

“This is not amnesty,” Mr. Obama said. “This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely, while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is the right thing to do.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/15/obama-grants-legal-status-young-illegal-immigrants/

[logroller]

I do t think they need to defend it. He just does it. I'm guessing it's to harness the Canadian vote. He should have read it in french.

[jimnyc]

I do t think they need to defend it. He just does it. I'm guessing it's to harness the Canadian vote. He should have read it in french.

That's the part that scares me, the fact that he does shit like this and is self righteous about it, as if he knows better than congress, the law and the American people. I can only cross my fingers that he finds out otherwise in November.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wonder how the libs will defend his lies this time? If your party sucks so bad and the American people won't back your initiatives, just do them anyway via different means. He outright said in the past, likely as a political move, that he couldn't even do something like this.

Discretion he says? How about the discretion to uphold the law? What the hell is the point of laws if someone will use discretion and avoid the law? Between this and fighting Florida over legitimate voter purging, this administration just really doesn't care about any laws.

I suppose the only good thing about this is that those who take him up on this offer, and get jobs, will hopefully be taxed in our system.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/15/obama-grants-legal-status-young-illegal-immigrants/

He yet again went around Congress and used Executive fiat to achieve that which he could not get by way of law.
I truly believe it is UnConstitional but know quite well that doesnt mean a damn thing to this want to be dictator!
Just imagine what he will do if he gets a second term with no reason to hold back!!??

[jimnyc]

He yet again went around Congress and used Executive fiat to achieve that which he could not get by way of law.
I truly believe it is UnConstitional but know quite well that doesnt mean a damn thing to this want to be dictator!
Just imagine what he will do if he gets a second term with no reason to hold back!!??

Yep, scary... Hopefully we won't find out. I'd like to think that having control of the house and senate would be enough to keep him in check, but not even close.

[logroller]

I have to wonder. Obama got elected and failed to fulfill his promises. SO possibly, this promise too may very well be unfilled.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yep, scary... Hopefully we won't find out. I'd like to think that having control of the house and senate would be enough to keep him in check, but not even close.

That would be great if we get it!
However getting control of the Senate-- HASNT HAPPENED YET AND LIKE MY PAPPY ALWAYS SAID, DONT COUNT YOUR CHICKENS BEFORE THE EGGS HATCH...:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

With this obama just put into law a bill that was voted down by the people's Congress!
I believe that it is outright treason!

[PostmodernProphet]

I will say this.....it has always been conservatives rather than liberals who promoted legal immigration......for the last several decades our system for legal immigration has been defective.....we have been far too restrictive in allowing new immigrants and this has had a detrimental effect on our economy in many ways.....issuing 800k new work visas on a one time basis is a mistake......we ought to be issuing a million every year instead.....

if someone wants to work in the US and someone wants to hire them then we should be giving work visas.......

[Kathianne]

I don't know how many of you have kids looking for jobs this summer, high school or college. In some areas of the country, the 16-23 age groups has over 28% unemployment. Now Obama is giving legal status to 800k-1m folks in this age group. More hope & change.

My guess is this will end up in courts.

[logroller]

I highly doubt he was deporting them before. He's said all along that he was focusing on the criminal element; so why make a big statement out of it?
It's clearly him pandering to the voters who're sympathetic to those who skirt the laws of this country. After all, that's his people.

[Kathianne]

Next up, reclaiming the Jewish vote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/13/peres-house-urging-obama-to-free-israeli-spy-pollard/


Israeli president, House lawmakers urging Obama to free Israeli spy Pollard Published June 13, 2012

Israeli President Shimon Peres was expected Wednesday to ask President Obama for the release of Jonathan Pollard, the American-turned-Israeli spy now serving a life sentence in U.S. prison.


Peres has made clear since arriving in the United States earlier this week that he will ask for clemency for Pollard, though not a pardon.


The Israeli president is in Washington to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But he's decided to push the Pollard issue while he's in town, despite White House resistance -- Peres brought with him a strongly worded petition purportedly signed by 70,000 Israelis that states, “We urge you to use your exceptional diplomatic position to work for the immediate release of Jonathan. And (ask) before you receive your medal, which would otherwise make a mockery of Israel."


Peres told Fox News on Tuesday that Israelis “feel very strongly about (Pollard.) And I understand their sentiment. But I am doing it not as a diplomat ... but as a human being.”


His expected request comes amid increasing pressure to free the 57-year-old Pollard -- a civilian Navy analyst who was sentenced in 1987 for stealing secrets and whose health is reportedly failing.
The White House, though, does not seem likely to budge.


"Our position has not changed, and will not change today," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday. "Mr. Pollard was convicted of extremely serious crimes."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/13/peres-house-urging-obama-to-free-israeli-spy-pollard/#ixzz1xvaC4jY0



Remember the bolded if Pollard is released.

[Nell's Room]

'Young illegal immigrants' as in how old? If someone is, say, 18 and were taken to the US illegally by their parents as a baby, then they certainly should be allowed to stay. They have grown up in the US and are just as American as the people on this forum.

But the article doesn't seem to mention, specifically, what it means by 'young' immigrants, so I can only assume.

[red states rule]

At the White House this is called the "Catch, Release, and Vote" program. Obama knows he is in dep trouble and needs to muster every voter he can

He thinks this will help win in November, when it will have the opposite effect

[taft2012]

Nonfeasance, which in a public official amounts to malfeasance.


http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/nonfeasance

Noun 1. A failure to act when under an obligation to do so; a refusal (without sufficient excuse) to do that which it is your legal duty to do.

[red states rule]

Obozo's immigration policy


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8mS6X8yAQsU/TnJp0RFisrI/AAAAAAAAAMI/OzgVrNdIW-w/s1600/immigration.jpg

[taft2012]

'Young illegal immigrants' as in how old? If someone is, say, 18 and were taken to the US illegally by their parents as a baby, then they certainly should be allowed to stay. They have grown up in the US and are just as American as the people on this forum.


That being the case, then they should theoretically be entitled to much more than mere work visas; they should be entitled to the full benefits package of full-fledged American citizens.

Now I have to ask, what other country is there on this planet that would allow people illegally inside their country for many years to step forward and be rewarded?

[red states rule]

That being the case, then they should theoretically be entitled to much more than mere work visas; they should be entitled to the full benefits package of full-fledged American citizens.

Now I have to ask, what other country is there on this planet that would allow people illegally inside their country for many years to step forward and be rewarded?


Does Mexico offer illegals a full benfit program. No, just a small jail cell where they sit for years

Look at what CA pays in welfare, health, and education benefits. That is one state out of 50

Hell, many liberal mayors openly invite illeagls to come to their city and promise them they will not be turned into ICE

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That being the case, then they should theoretically be entitled to much more than mere work visas; they should be entitled to the full benefits package of full-fledged American citizens.

Now I have to ask, what other country is there on this planet that would allow people illegally inside their country for many years to step forward and be rewarded?

Answer is there are no other nations that do that insanity. Even more insane to do so when so many citizens are desperately fighting for the few NEW jobs AVAILABLE! -Tyr

[red states rule]

Here are some of Mexico's immigration laws





There is no shortage of criticism (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/27/brewer-condemns-un-report-citing-arizona-law) of our immigration laws from detractors who contend that they are unjust and immoral. And though criticism of U.S. immigration laws can be fierce – particularly in the case of Arizona’s SB 1070, the Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070) – Mexico’s much harsher immigration laws rarely get noticed.

Upon Arizona’s passage of SB 1070, critics (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?_r=2) attacked the law with claims of racial profiling. Among the opponents were the open border lobby, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (http://www.maldef.org/) (MALDEF), other liberal interest groups, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. In addition to critics here at home, the bill also found an enemy in Mexican President Felipe Calderon. He famously lectured our country in his address to Congress (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/calderon-speech-congress-mexico-immigration_n_582934.html) in 2010, declaring that the law “ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree” and “[that it] introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement,” he said to cheers from some in the House chamber.

The speech and Calderon’s remarks received considerable media attention, particularly from a largely sympathetic Hispanic media. But receiving far less scrutiny was how President Calderon and his country are dealing with illegal immigration. Upon closer examination, Arizona’s SB 1070 looks like amnesty compared to Mexican law.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas)
The Law Library of Congress released a report in April 2006 (https://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=63300&coll=limited) titled, Immigration Law Sanctions and Enforcement in Selected Foreign Countries: Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Switzerland. The report observed how Mexican law considers “legal entry a federal crime … penalized with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine from three hundred to five thousand Mexican Pesos, and deportation.” Repeat offenders receive even harsher sanctions of 10-year imprisonment and a fine of up to five thousand pesos and deportation.

Although Mexico recently reformed the Ley General de Población (http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/140.pdf) ([I]General Law of the People) in January 2011, our neighbors to the south continue the policy of maintaining fines at the current level of five thousand pesos, or $418.10 in March 2011, for those who don’t follow deportation orders (Chapter 8, Article 117).

Among the other findings of the Library of Congress, through its “enforcing arm, the National Institute of Migration –INAMI” (the equivalent of ICE here in the USA), the Mexican Police Force, may carry out the following:” (Chapter 10, Article 151)



Perform verification visits
Cause a foreigner to appear before immigration authorities
Receive and present complaints and testimony
Perform migration inspection operations on routes or at temporary points different from established inspection locations
Obtain such other elements of proof as may be necessary for the application of the Act, its regulation, and additional administrative provisions


Lastly, “the authorities of the country, whether federal, local, or municipal, and the notaries public and commercial brokers are required to request that the foreigners whom they deal with prove their legal presence in the country” and illegal immigrants who wish to get married to Mexican citizens “must request authorization from the Secretariat of the Interior.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/04/mexico%E2%80%99s-immigration-laws-the-untold-story/

[Gaffer]

It won't be long and the dark one will be issuing an executive order shutting down congress.

[red states rule]

It won't be long and the dark one will be issuing an executive order shutting down congress.

and purging Fox News and consevative talk radio from the airwaves

BTW I wonder how Virgil is doing in Mexico?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It won't be long and the dark one will be issuing an executive order shutting down congress.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is without a doubt a possibility!
Most people would not agree with that because they automaticly refuse to face the reality of what the guy truly is. However I say bravo and well said!!!
If anybody should choose to declare that you are engaging in "fear mongering" I say to that , FEAR is often a healthy reaction and it is why we keep lions and tigers in cages!--Tyr

[Gaffer]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is without a doubt a possibility!
Most people would not agree with that because they automaticly refuse to face the reality of what the guy truly is. However I say bravo and well said!!!
If anybody should choose to declare that you are engaging in "fear mongering" I say to that , FEAR is often a healthy reaction and it is why we keep lions and tigers in cages!--Tyr

I hope I am wrong and will be glad to accept all the harassment anyone wants to give me after Nov. But I don't think I'm wrong on this. He's going for the brass ring sometime real soon.

[red states rule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4s5pmFL_ZlQ/TDx_UNF0VKI/AAAAAAAAD-A/35KUYCC2SpM/s1600/amnesty%2Billegal%2Baliens%2Bmexicans%2Bmexico%2Bn aturalized%2Bcitizens%2Bmotivational%2Bposters%2Bo nline%2Bblogs%2Bhot%2Bfunny.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

and purging Fox News and consevative talk radio from the airwaves

BTW I wonder how Virgil is doing in Mexico?

That is more likely to happen before the other Executive Dictator creating action.
America has many patriots and many ex-military that will not sit idly by. They know this and will take actions to limit such opposition from forming a cohesive force to right the ship.
Quite possible that obama would spend another four years further weakening this nation and it's military while leaving drastic action such as that to another future traitor! As long range planning tends to have a greater effect and higher success rate when implemented.
I till the soil, plant the seeds before I expect to water the plants or reap the harvest..-:salute:---Tyr

[red states rule]

That is more likely to happen before the other Executive Dictator creating action.
America has many patriots and many ex-military that will not sit idly by. They know this and will take actions to limit such opposition from forming a cohesive force to right the ship.
Quite possible that obama would spend another four years further weakening this nation and it's military while leaving drastic action such as that to another future traitor! As long range planning tends to have a greater effect and higher success rate when implemented.
I till the soil, plant the seeds before I expect to water he plants or reap the harvest..-:salute:---Tyr

If Obozo wants to weaken the nation even more then he has - he only has until noon on 1/20/13 to do it by

His ass is going to be fired and he will then join the ranks of the millions of unemployed people who lost their jobs thanks to his policies

[red states rule]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is without a doubt a possibility!
Most people would not agree with that because they automaticly refuse to face the reality of what the guy truly is. However I say bravo and well said!!!
If anybody should choose to declare that you are engaging in "fear mongering" I say to that , FEAR is often a healthy reaction and it is why we keep lions and tigers in cages!--Tyr



http://deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/mexiforniadl-650x404.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If Obozo wants to weaken the nation even more then he has - he only has until noon on 1/20/13 to do it by

His ass is going to be fired and he will then join the ranks of the millions of unemployed people who lost their jobs thanks to his policies

Consider this for a moment. If the possibility exists(and it does) that he is the kind that would do away with Congress then using his power to "steal" the election would be a lesser and far easier feat to accomplish. I have reason to believe obama's stealing the election is already in the works.
And no , I will not reveal my sources on that (just trying to head off the arrogant demands from silly people not you) .-:laugh:--Tyr

[red states rule]

Consider this for a moment. If the possibility exists(and it does) that he is the kind that would do away with Congress then using his power to "steal" the election would be a lesser and far easier feat to accomplish. I have reason to believe obama's stealing the election is already in the works.
And no , I will not reveal my sources on that (just trying to head off the arrogant demands from silly people not you) .-:laugh:--Tyr

No Obozo is going on his core beliefs that the kook left is all he needs to win. He has written off white working class voter, blacks are leaving him, and Independents are leaving him in huge numbers

Obozo is toast and it is his core principals that will be his undoing

All the voter fraud the Dems ca muster cannot and will not stop the blowout Obozo is going to defeated by

[jimnyc]

'Young illegal immigrants' as in how old? If someone is, say, 18 and were taken to the US illegally by their parents as a baby, then they certainly should be allowed to stay. They have grown up in the US and are just as American as the people on this forum.

But the article doesn't seem to mention, specifically, what it means by 'young' immigrants, so I can only assume.

If someone's parents sneak them into this country when they are younger, that makes the kids as American as us? What is to stop indigent families worldwide from scrambling here with their kids for a better life? Your line of thinking gets the parents sent home (most likely not them either) and the kids get a waiver and freebies? Bullshit.

[red states rule]

I saw this and thought of Gabby


http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/06/28/illegal%20immigrants%20billboard.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I saw this and thought of Gabby


http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/06/28/illegal%20immigrants%20billboard.jpg

Hey, exactly where is that brilliant sign located?---:beer:
I may want to go there, celebrate by having a picnic/beer party!-;)--Tyr

[red states rule]

http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/obama-illegals.jpg

[aboutime]

I don't know how many of you have kids looking for jobs this summer, high school or college. In some areas of the country, the 16-23 age groups has over 28% unemployment. Now Obama is giving legal status to 800k-1m folks in this age group. More hope & change.

My guess is this will end up in courts.


Since Obama, and his illiterate followers who have identified people like me as racists, terrorists, and accused us of being traitors. Wouldn't that INSTANTLY qualify all of us who disagree with Obama as eligible for the assistance he now wants to give to Illegals?

That seems to be the underlying context of his intentions to OVERLOOK Americans without jobs whom HE....OBAMA...Hopes, will vote for him in November.

[Gaffer]

Since Obama, and his illiterate followers who have identified people like me as racists, terrorists, and accused us of being traitors. Wouldn't that INSTANTLY qualify all of us who disagree with Obama as eligible for the assistance he now wants to give to Illegals?

That seems to be the underlying context of his intentions to OVERLOOK Americans without jobs whom HE....OBAMA...Hopes, will vote for him in November.

Your like me, an enemy of the state. So declared by napolitano. And I wear it proudly.

[red states rule]

http://www.the1789project.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/arizona-jan-brewer-illegal-immigration.jpg

[aboutime]

Your like me, an enemy of the state. So declared by napolitano. And I wear it proudly.

It's such a pleasure to be an Enemy of the state of Stupidity, according to Her/Him.
It must really piss them off to know that veterans who made it possible for them to be stupid still OBEY and Follow the Oath we took. Unlike them. And they ignore it every chance they get.
Americans in general. Especially American veterans in, and out of uniform know. Obama is just one of those huge Historical Mistakes...like Benedict Arnold Obama.

[Gaffer]

It's such a pleasure to be an Enemy of the state of Stupidity, according to Her/Him.
It must really piss them off to know that veterans who made it possible for them to be stupid still OBEY and Follow the Oath we took. Unlike them. And they ignore it every chance they get.
Americans in general. Especially American veterans in, and out of uniform know. Obama is just one of those huge Historical Mistakes...like Benedict Arnold Obama.

:salute:

[red states rule]

http://lastelection.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/anti-obama-sign.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

BTW I wonder how Virgil is doing in Mexico?

I expect he was kidnapped but no one was willing to pay and they killed him.....

[red states rule]

I expect he was kidnapped but no one was willing to pay and they killed him.....

More like if nobody paid they sent him back

[Trigg]

'Young illegal immigrants' as in how old? If someone is, say, 18 and were taken to the US illegally by their parents as a baby, then they certainly should be allowed to stay. They have grown up in the US and are just as American as the people on this forum.

But the article doesn't seem to mention, specifically, what it means by 'young' immigrants, so I can only assume.

WHY should they be allowed to stay?????

They broke the law. I fully support the deportation of these children along with their parents. NOW, if they go home and prove they can support themselves and their parents than let them apply for citizenship.

We have laws for a reason....we need to enforce them.

[ConHog]

I can't watch this anymore.

This board is spiraling down the path of rightwing stupidity.


So ConHog is back and challenges ANYONE to a one on one debate on "has Obama exceeded his authority with the aforementioned announcement."

First come , first serve if any of you have the chops.

[Missileman]

I can't watch this anymore.

This board is spiraling down the path of rightwing stupidity.


So ConHog is back and challenges ANYONE to a one on one debate on "has Obama exceeded his authority with the aforementioned announcement."

First come , first serve if any of you have the chops.

Hey look! Windsong's back!

[jimnyc]

I can't watch this anymore.

This board is spiraling down the path of rightwing stupidity.


So ConHog is back and challenges ANYONE to a one on one debate on "has Obama exceeded his authority with the aforementioned announcement."

First come , first serve if any of you have the chops.

He very well may have a legal loophole into allowing what he is planning. But doing so doesn't make it the right thing to do. IMO, anything short of enforcing our laws is wrong. Hell, they're fighting Arizona because they want to enforce laws, and now fighting Florida for wanting to enforce laws. They are literally stopping others from enforcing laws that THEY should be enforcing, and then taking it a step further and taking any punishment off the line for illegals and giving them work authorization - which IS a form of reward for breaking the law.

[ConHog]

He very well may have a legal loophole into allowing what he is planning. But doing so doesn't make it the right thing to do. IMO, anything short of enforcing our laws is wrong. Hell, they're fighting Arizona because they want to enforce laws, and now fighting Florida for wanting to enforce laws. They are literally stopping others from enforcing laws that THEY should be enforcing, and then taking it a step further and taking any punishment off the line for illegals and giving them work authorization - which IS a form of reward for breaking the law.

This is a LIMITED engagement for now. Are you accepting a one on one challenge to the question "Is Obama exceeding his authority with the afrementioned " or not.

I'm only interested in a one on one, if you're my huckleberry then accept and let's set terms.

[jimnyc]

This is a LIMITED engagement for now. Are you accepting a one on one challenge to the question "Is Obama exceeding his authority with the afrementioned " or not.

I'm only interested in a one on one, if you're my huckleberry then accept and let's set terms.

I'm not debating the subject. I don't want to and don't need to. I'm just of the opinion that ANYONE who is here illegally, should be set away sailing and let them come back LEGALLY, like everyone else does. Whether or not Obama has the authority to do what he is planning doesn't change my stance.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey look! Windsong's back!

Sorry, I am a bit confused here. Are they the same person?
How can one leave here and still know what is going on here?
Strange but I guess miracles are possible, eh?--Tyr

[ConHog]

I'm not debating the subject. I don't want to and don't need to. I'm just of the opinion that ANYONE who is here illegally, should be set away sailing and let them come back LEGALLY, like everyone else does. Whether or not Obama has the authority to do what he is planning doesn't change my stance.

Then you are not who I'm challenging Jim. I am challenging one of the many who say Obama can't legally do what he's announced he's going t do.

There is obviously no sense in us debating our OPINIONS.

[jimnyc]

Then you are not who I'm challenging Jim. I am challenging one of the many who say Obama can't legally do what he's announced he's going t do.

There is obviously no sense in us debating our OPINIONS.

That's why, because I know it is my opinion. I'm not knowledgeable enough in the law to know if this loophole oversteps his authority or not. Quite frankly though, I do hope someone legally challenges him to ensure this is on the up and up, but his own people will just declare it legal. And then hopefully when we get a real president in office, they'll take steps to ensure that no one person, President or not, can overrule law and must get votes through congress to make such huge changes. And yes, I know all about executive orders, but there has to be some sort of limitations for cases such as this.

[ConHog]

That's why, because I know it is my opinion. I'm not knowledgeable enough in the law to know if this loophole oversteps his authority or not. Quite frankly though, I do hope someone legally challenges him to ensure this is on the up and up, but his own people will just declare it legal. And then hopefully when we get a real president in office, they'll take steps to ensure that no one person, President or not, can overrule law and must get votes through congress to make such huge changes. And yes, I know all about executive orders, but there has to be some sort of limitations for cases such as this.


Of course there are, and some here are claiming this one exceeds those limits, I'm challenging one of them to stand up and prove it.

Understandably it looks like no one wants any part of that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not debating the subject. I don't want to and don't need to. I'm just of the opinion that ANYONE who is here illegally, should be set away sailing and let them come back LEGALLY, like everyone else does. Whether or not Obama has the authority to do what he is planning doesn't change my stance.

Well, I've had my dance and also I do not care to formally debate a person unless I have respect for that person and sense that they have at least a shred of honor.
In addition there is not a man alive that can change my stand on the insanity of allowing this illegal invasion.
I have been thru 5 years of this debating issues at three other forums and from my experience the person most popular with the forum gets voted the winner regardless. Besides the nature of my job prevents me from committing to the Debate Rules that I read previously.
Have fun and I'll have another beer..-:beer:--Tyr

[ConHog]

Well, I've had my dance and also I do not care to formally debate a person unless I have respect for that person and sense that they have at least a shred of honor.
In addition there is not a man alive that can change my stand on the insanity of allowing this illegal invasion.
I have been thru 5 years of this debating issues at three other forums and from my experience the person most popular with the forum gets voted the winner regardless. Besides the nature of my job prevents me from committing to the Debate Rules that I read previously.
Have fun and I'll have another beer..-:beer:--Tyr

That's quite alright, you stick to flames and avoid actual debate with those who ridicule your ridiculous claims of treason by Obama.

As Dirty Harry said , "A man's GOT to know his limitations"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's quite alright, you stick to flames and avoid actual debate with those who ridicule your ridiculous claims of treason by Obama.

As Dirty Harry said , "A man's GOT to know his limitations"

:laugh2: :clap: :laugh2:

Panties in a wad or what?
Now that you've crawled back , I say welcome , dont be such a stranger-:laugh2:
Talk civilly and I will reply in kind. Otherwise, well you know dont ya?-:laugh:

By the way I listed my price a while back (you can find the post easy enough). You read it and apparently thought it too steep a price to pay for your much cherished self-inflating desire.--Tyr

[Gaffer]

I'm not interested in one on one debates. I like everyone kicking in with their opinions or evidence.

Barely the president Is breaking the law himself by declaring that he will not enforce the laws already on the books. Congress makes the laws. The president enforces them. He has ordered HS and INS to stop enforcing laws that congress put into effect. If ever congress needed a reason to impeach they have just been handed one. This is a blatant executive power grab purely for political reasons.

[jimnyc]

Of course there are, and some here are claiming this one exceeds those limits, I'm challenging one of them to stand up and prove it.

Understandably it looks like no one wants any part of that.

Humor me - on what authority are you claiming that Obama has the right to make such a decision? Even he himself has stated for years that he didn't have the authority. And now, it appears it is a change from the department of homeland security that gives him this authority now. So instead of going through congress, which he himself stated in the past would be necessary - he just unilaterally has changes made by the DHLS and that makes it all ok? At least give me a line into your thinking...

[ConHog]

:laugh2: :clap: :laugh2:

Panties in a wad or what?
Now that you've crawled back , I say welcome , dont be such a stranger-:laugh2:
Talk civilly and I will reply in kind. Otherwise, well you know dont ya?-:laugh:--Tyr

Doubtful that.

So, let's go one on one debate, you think Obama has exceeded his authority, on this and other subjects, make your case.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Doubtful that.

So, let's go one on one debate, you think Obama has exceeded his authority, on this and other subjects, make your case.

Good grief, so quick to beg for your wish to be granted.
A man with honor wouldnt stoop so low in my opinion.
Your "doubtful that" comment pretty much said it all but beg some more it'll do ya good.-:laugh2:-Tyr

P.S. Humility breeds Patience and Honor!

[ConHog]

Good grief, so quick to beg for your wish to be granted.
A man with honor wouldnt stoop so low in my opinion.
Your "doubtful that" comment pretty much said it all but beg some more it'll do ya good.-:laugh2:-Tyr

P.S. Humility breeds Patience and Honor!

Was I not clear enough for you?

If I want to flame you I'll take you down to the Steel Cage. I want a one on one debate out of this thread. If you're not interested, then just bypass the offer.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Was I not clear enough for you?

If I want to flame you I'll take you down to the Steel Cage. I want a one on one debate out of this thread. If you're not interested, then just bypass the offer.

On your bolded above, I already did and cited my reasons(which you blew off), can't you read?--:laugh2:--Tyr

[Shadow]

I'm not interested in one on one debates. I like everyone kicking in with their opinions or evidence.

Barely the president Is breaking the law himself by declaring that he will not enforce the laws already on the books. Congress makes the laws. The president enforces them. He has ordered HS and INS to stop enforcing laws that congress put into effect. If ever congress needed a reason to impeach they have just been handed one. This is a blatant executive power grab purely for political reasons.


Me too Gaffer...I'm sick of one voice always drowing out the masses...just because they are very loud and opinionated. I also agree with your second point. It's a political power grab.

[Gaffer]

Note to Ron Paul. You want to be considered a viable candidate as president. Take what's been handed to you and run with it. Get impeachment proceedings started and watch your popularity soar.

[ConHog]

[/B]

On your bolded above, I already did and cited my reasons(which you blew off), can't you read?--:laugh2:--Tyr

No, a bypass would have been at most to say "not interested" , instead you went the usual, for you, route of nothing but flames.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Me too Gaffer...I'm sick of one voice always drowing out the masses...just because they are very loud and opinionated. I also agree with your second point. It's a political power grab.

A triple bravo on that! :beer::beer::beer:
You should post more often if your time permits it.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Note to Ron Paul. You want to be considered a viable candidate as president. Take what's been handed to you and run with it. Get impeachment proceedings started and watch your popularity soar.

Exactly but too much politics to be played for obama to be impeached or actually stand trial.
Remember he put Soto on the Supreme Court and has put libs in charge at all levels federal government and judicial.
She refused to recuse herself and that points to exactly why she is there!--Tyr

[ConHog]

I'm not interested in one on one debates. I like everyone kicking in with their opinions or evidence.

Barely the president Is breaking the law himself by declaring that he will not enforce the laws already on the books. Congress makes the laws. The president enforces them. He has ordered HS and INS to stop enforcing laws that congress put into effect. If ever congress needed a reason to impeach they have just been handed one. This is a blatant executive power grab purely for political reasons.

You DO realize that having a one on one discussion doesn't preclude the group discussion from continuing don't you?

[Gaffer]

Exactly but too much politics to be played for obama to be impeached or actually stand trial.
Remember he put Soto on the Supreme Court and has put libs in charge at all levels federal government and judicial.
She refused to recuse herself and that points to exactly why she is there!--Tyr

He's put everything into place and now he starting to make his move. Watch for more power grabs in the coming weeks. And the media will cover for him.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You DO realize that having a one on one discussion doesn't preclude the group discussion from continuing don't you?

You do realise that you magnificent challenge does not preclude others from carrying on as usual, right?
I mean , yes it's EARTH shattering and all but if you get no takers perhaps it may speak of your character more than anything else. Just a thought for you to ponder. Glad to help.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He's put everything into place and now he starting to make his move. Watch for more power grabs in the coming weeks. And the media will cover for him.

Dead on the money my friend! I was predicting this on my old forum over 3 years ago!
And a miracle! I was correct, the snake slithered into place and struck..-Tyr

[ConHog]

You do realise that you magnificent challenge does not preclude others from carrying on as usual, right?
I mean , yes it's EARTH shattering and all but if you get no takers perhaps it may speak of your character more than anything else. Just a thought for you to ponder. Glad to help.-Tyr

Oh, I know what it speaks to.

Leave out flames, and limit it to one and one and I have a better than even chance of defeating anyone on this board in debate, and everyone here knows that.

You keep on proving all you have is flames though.

[Missileman]

This is a LIMITED engagement for now. Are you accepting a one on one challenge to the question "Is Obama exceeding his authority with the afrementioned " or not.

I'm only interested in a one on one, if you're my huckleberry then accept and let's set terms.

Why not just post your evidence that the executive branch is constitutionally given discretion on what laws it will uphold. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's dying to see it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh, I know what it speaks to.

Leave out flames, and limit it to one and one and I have a better than even chance of defeating anyone on this board in debate, and everyone here knows that.

You keep on proving all you have is flames though.


Well thanks for proving that you only seek to enhance your much self-acclaimed and magnificent powers.
Repeat it often enough and perhaps a weak minded person or two will start to believe it.
I dont mind and will enjoy the show. Trust me, I will.

Remember that you left a few days ago over the fall out from a challenge you brazenly issued and now you come back with much the same challenge.
This need to prove yourself could point to a great insecurity but hey I'm not a head doctor so seek help only if you feel you need to..----:laugh2:Tyr

[ConHog]

Why not just post your evidence that the executive branch is constitutionally given discretion on what laws it will uphold. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's dying to see it.

Fair enough since no one is going to accept a one on one beat down.

Deferred Enforced Departure

Guess who the last President who used it was? George W Bush.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=fbff3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fbff3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD


(a) Historical Background .


Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) is a temporary, discretionary, administrative stay of removal granted to aliens from designated countries. Unlike TPS, DED emanates from the President’s constitutional powers to conduct foreign relations and has no statutory basis. (Because DED is not a statutory provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act it is not considered an immigration status.) The President designates DED for nationals of a particular country through either an Executive Order or a Presidentia l Memorandum.


DED was first used in 1990 and has been used a total of five times. Most recently, nationals of Liberia were designated under DED through September 29, 2002.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-16606/0-0-0-16764.html


note added for MissileMan. I don't make the claim that in EVERY case Obama has authority to do what he does, I was only speaking about THIS announcement.

[jimnyc]

Tyr, please, can we not initiate flames. If you don't want to debate CH, that's cool, but I don't want the thread ruined in case others might be interested. If you want a break from the day to day debating, you're more than welcome to drop down to the cage and get down and dirty about Con if you like.

I just don't want threads to go down in flames the minute 2 people who dislike one another first engage. It should be a) ignore OR b) try and have civil discussion for awhile. I just don't want thread after thread to be brought down in flames, regardless of who starts it, as the entire community suffers when this happens.

I'm not tossing my admin hat on here, just appealing to cooler heads that we can all work together in making this place better, and hopefully get rid of at least a little of the daily drama. And that includes me in my own speech, I know I need to back off at times too. Just pleading right now!

[jimnyc]

Fair enough since no one is going to accept a one on one beat down.

Deferred Enforced Departure

Guess who the last President who used it was? George W Bush.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=fbff3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fbff3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD


(a) Historical Background .


Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) is a temporary, discretionary, administrative stay of removal granted to aliens from designated countries. Unlike TPS, DED emanates from the President’s constitutional powers to conduct foreign relations and has no statutory basis. (Because DED is not a statutory provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act it is not considered an immigration status.) The President designates DED for nationals of a particular country through either an Executive Order or a Presidentia l Memorandum.


DED was first used in 1990 and has been used a total of five times. Most recently, nationals of Liberia were designated under DED through September 29, 2002.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-16606/0-0-0-16764.html

Granted I only skimmed through most, but this appears to be for "aliens" and I don't see where it applies to those who committed a crime to get into our country. Can you show where this specifically applies to illegals? Not doubting you, just don't see it yet...

[jimnyc]

Granted I only skimmed through most, but this appears to be for "aliens" and I don't see where it applies to those who committed a crime to get into our country. Can you show where this specifically applies to illegals? Not doubting you, just don't see it yet...

For example, from your link:


Eligibility requirements for a country’s nationals who are covered under DED is based on the terms of the President’s directive regarding DED for that country and any relevant implementing requirements established by DHS. Information on eligibility can be found on your DED country link to the left.

What country specifically is this being granted to?

[ConHog]

For example, from your link:



What country specifically is this being granted to?

Any country the President designates. Currently Libya is the only country that enjoys said protection. And of course it applies to illegals. Legals are in no danger of being deported with or without the directive.

Now, I'm not even arguing that this is the right thing to do, I merely argue that it is obvious that the POTUS can do this.

Much the same as I hate that the POTUS can pardon anyone he wants for any crime with no explanation, but I acknowledge that he CAN do it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, please, can we not initiate flames. If you don't want to debate CH, that's cool, but I don't want the thread ruined in case others might be interested. If you want a break from the day to day debating, you're more than welcome to drop down to the cage and get down and dirty about Con if you like.

I just don't want threads to go down in flames the minute 2 people who dislike one another first engage. It should be a) ignore OR b) try and have civil discussion for awhile. I just don't want thread after thread to be brought down in flames, regardless of who starts it, as the entire community suffers when this happens.

I'm not tossing my admin hat on here, just appealing to cooler heads that we can all work together in making this place better, and hopefully get rid of at least a little of the daily drama. And that includes me in my own speech, I know I need to back off at times too. Just pleading right now!

Will do. Not a problem as I've said enough already. I share your wish for this place to flourish and grow by leaps and bounds. Thanks.-Tyr

[Gaffer]

You DO realize that having a one on one discussion doesn't preclude the group discussion from continuing don't you?

Yes I do. But I've said my piece. I don't need to rehash it ten times over. Now you can say why you disagree or agree and we'll move on. I don't want to get involved in quoting facts and opinions and researching what part of the Constitution is violated.

[jimnyc]

Any country the President designates. Currently Libya is the only country that enjoys said protection. And of course it applies to illegals. Legals are in no danger of being deported with or without the directive.

Now, I'm not even arguing that this is the right thing to do, I merely argue that it is obvious that the POTUS can do this.

Much the same as I hate that the POTUS can pardon anyone he wants for any crime with no explanation, but I acknowledge that he CAN do it.

And I believe it's only supposed to cover those already on the list for deportation, from what I'm no reading, and Obama wants it to stretch and blanket millions instead of those already on the list. Doing such on a massive scale would be no more than amnesty.

But yes, it wouldn't surprise me that there is a legal loophole for this. And if you read what Bush did, it's a far cry from Obama's plan. I see little point in having immigration laws if some will sue those who try and enforce these laws, or make changes to make these laws useless.

[ConHog]

Yes I do. But I've said my piece. I don't need to rehash it ten times over. Now you can say why you disagree or agree and we'll move on. I don't want to get involved in quoting facts and opinions and researching what part of the Constitution is violated.

That's fine Gaffer and just like I said with Jim, that is an entirely different statement than saying "Obama CAN'T do that, it's unconstitutional" Clearly it is not.

The question of should he, is another question entirely.

[jimnyc]

That's fine Gaffer and just like I said with Jim, that is an entirely different statement than saying "Obama CAN'T do that, it's unconstitutional" Clearly it is not.

The question of should he, is another question entirely.

But I think it SHOULD be unconstitutional. There should be EXTREMELY limited times when a sitting President should be able to shit on congress and the American people and do what HE pleases. And I think this should be fixed, as the framers certainly didn't have this kind of crap in mind when they started with these types of orders. It's obvious it's not clarified enough to perhaps declare such actions unconstitutional. But if clarified, I think it can and should be limited, and still have some sort of oversight and limitations. If this prick is willing to do the shit he is doing this year, what do you think he'll be willing to try the last 2 years of a lame duck Presidency? Now you KNOW I'm not a nutter, but this guy and those he surrounds himself with, literally scare me a bit.

[ConHog]

And I believe it's only supposed to cover those already on the list for deportation, from what I'm no reading, and Obama wants it to stretch and blanket millions instead of those already on the list. Doing such on a massive scale would be no more than amnesty.

But yes, it wouldn't surprise me that there is a legal loophole for this. And if you read what Bush did, it's a far cry from Obama's plan. I see little point in having immigration laws if some will sue those who try and enforce these laws, or make changes to make these laws useless.

What do you mean those already on the list? There is no master list of , how could there be, it's not like we even KNOW who's here illegally to make such a master list anyway.

Nope, the DED is specifically designed to apply to entire countries. When Libya was on the list it was because Bush I (originally) felt that any Libyans deported back to Libya would be victimized by Quadaffi, so they were effectively given immunity and allowed to stay.

Now granted it is stretching the bounds to imagine Mexicans are in danger if they are deported to Mexico, but I think I could at least make a case that children would be. And certainly we could all agree that they are better off here.

And again, I'm not saying I agree with putting Mexico on the list, I'm merely saying that he is well within his accepted power to do so.

[ConHog]

But I think it SHOULD be unconstitutional. There should be EXTREMELY limited times when a sitting President should be able to shit on congress and the American people and do what HE pleases. And I think this should be fixed, as the framers certainly didn't have this kind of crap in mind when they started with these types of orders. It's obvious it's not clarified enough to perhaps declare such actions unconstitutional. But if clarified, I think it can and should be limited, and still have some sort of oversight and limitations. If this prick is willing to do the shit he is doing this year, what do you think he'll be willing to try the last 2 years of a lame duck Presidency? Now you KNOW I'm not a nutter, but this guy and those he surrounds himself with, literally scare me a bit.

Jim, I agree he pushes EVERYTHING and there are things he does that I don't agree with, and there are things he does that are patently unconstitutional. This may be the former ( I haven't formulated a complete opinion yet ) but it certainly is not the latter. Four consecutive POTUS have used the exact directive. Two from each party, if it was unconstitutional , well it would have been tossed by now.

[jimnyc]

What do you mean those already on the list? There is no master list of , how could there be, it's not like we even KNOW who's here illegally to make such a master list anyway.

Nope, the DED is specifically designed to apply to entire countries. When Libya was on the list it was because Bush I (originally) felt that any Libyans deported back to Libya would be victimized by Quadaffi, so they were effectively given immunity and allowed to stay.

Now granted it is stretching the bounds to imagine Mexicans are in danger if they are deported to Mexico, but I think I could at least make a case that children would be. And certainly we could all agree that they are better off here.

And again, I'm not saying I agree with putting Mexico on the list, I'm merely saying that he is well within his accepted power to do so.

Again, I'm learning about a lot of this, but I found it on this site:


Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), authorized by the President, suspends the deportation of an illegal alien and allows the alien to seek a work permit and legal status, usually for a designated period of time. (USCIS DED Fact Sheet). However, a Congressional source told Fox News that lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis. (Fox News, June 23, 2010). While DHS could only grant deferred action to those illegal alien students already identified for deportation, any action along these lines would be tantamount to granting amnesty to the millions of illegal alien students who would be able to live and work in the U.S. for as long as the administration deemed appropriate-and who would benefit from the DREAM Act, should it ever be enacted by Congress.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010062810789/us/homeland-security/us-legislative-immigration-update-june-28-2010.html

[jimnyc]

Jim, I agree he pushes EVERYTHING and there are things he does that I don't agree with, and there are things he does that are patently unconstitutional. This may be the former ( I haven't formulated a complete opinion yet ) but it certainly is not the latter. Four consecutive POTUS have used the exact directive. Two from each party, if it was unconstitutional , well it would have been tossed by now.

I don't care if it's been used by 20 presidents for a century - the POTUS should be upholding laws, not circumventing them. No matter how you slice it, it's a form of amnesty, a form of rewarding illegal activity & a form of the executive branch saying a big FU to lawmakers.

[ConHog]

Again, I'm learning about a lot of this, but I found it on this site:



http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010062810789/us/homeland-security/us-legislative-immigration-update-june-28-2010.html

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying in this post?

[Missileman]

Fair enough since no one is going to accept a one on one beat down.

Deferred Enforced Departure

Guess who the last President who used it was? George W Bush.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=fbff3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fbff3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD


(a) Historical Background .


Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) is a temporary, discretionary, administrative stay of removal granted to aliens from designated countries. Unlike TPS, DED emanates from the President’s constitutional powers to conduct foreign relations and has no statutory basis. (Because DED is not a statutory provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act it is not considered an immigration status.) The President designates DED for nationals of a particular country through either an Executive Order or a Presidentia l Memorandum.


DED was first used in 1990 and has been used a total of five times. Most recently, nationals of Liberia were designated under DED through September 29, 2002.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-16606/0-0-0-16764.html


note added for MissileMan. I don't make the claim that in EVERY case Obama has authority to do what he does, I was only speaking about THIS announcement.

Can't possibly apply in this case. He's designated no country AND he's not giving a stay to all from said country.

[jimnyc]

What do you mean those already on the list? There is no master list of , how could there be, it's not like we even KNOW who's here illegally to make such a master list anyway.


I'm not entirely sure what you are saying in this post?

While DHS could only grant deferred action to those illegal alien students already identified for deportation

[ConHog]

Can't possibly apply in this case. He's designated no country AND he's not giving a stay to all from said country.

You mean he hasn't yet. We don't actually know yet how he's going to do it. but if he goes THIS route, then yes, he has the authority.

[ConHog]

While DHS could only grant deferred action to those illegal alien students already identified for deportation

right, which means ALL illegals are (supposedly) identified for deportation if they come in any contact with the gov't. So that means any and all illegals from the designated country are effectively covered. It also means they can legally obtain a work permit and get jobs and pay into the tax system under their own ID.

All that section does is differentiate between individuals who are allowed to stay under different polices and ones who will be allowed to stay under THIS policy.

[jimnyc]

right, which means ALL illegals are (supposedly) identified for deportation if they come in any contact with the gov't. So that means any and all illegals from the designated country are effectively covered. It also means they can legally obtain a work permit and get jobs and pay into the tax system under their own ID.

All that section does is differentiate between individuals who are allowed to stay under different polices and ones who will be allowed to stay under THIS policy.

Well, I can't wait to see what country he designates, considering there are probably dozens infecting our country. But if he chooses probably the largest, Mexico, will they then enforce the laws against illegal non-Mexicans? If not, then this is a waste of time and money anyway.

[ConHog]

Well, I can't wait to see what country he designates, considering there are probably dozens infecting our country. But if he chooses probably the largest, Mexico, will they then enforce the laws against illegal non-Mexicans? If not, then this is a waste of time and money anyway.

Under THIS , then yes I would think that if he ONLY designates Mexico, then others would have to be deported under color of law.

For example, at one time Nicaragua,Honduras, and Ecuador were on the list, but Mexico was not, so if you're from Mexico tough shit. Same with currently Libya is on the list, but Algiers is not, so Algerians should be deported.

And from my reading a person has to PROVE they are from the designated country to qualify, IOW no Hondurans just saying they are Mexican to remain in the country.

And of course the standards for designating someone as being a danger to the country or to the public and thus not being eligible even if they are from the listed country is pretty loose so scum should not qualify.

[PostmodernProphet]

I can't watch this anymore.

This board is spiraling down the path of rightwing stupidity.


So ConHog is back and challenges ANYONE to a one on one debate on "has Obama exceeded his authority with the aforementioned announcement."

First come , first serve if any of you have the chops.

well, I would say we missed you but you didn't stay away long enough for that to actually happen......

[PostmodernProphet]

ordering a branch of the administration to take no action against illegals is one thing......but what is the president going to do when he tries to issue work visas in excess of the statutory limit set by congressional action......

[ConHog]

well, I would say we missed you but you didn't stay away long enough for that to actually happen......

Irrelevant flame


ordering a branch of the administration to take no action against illegals is one thing......but what is the president going to do when he tries to issue work visas in excess of the statutory limit set by congressional action......



Under DED , they would get work authorizations, not work visas. An entirely different thing, and thus not applicable. Work Visas only apply to why someone is in the country. Those here under DED don't need said reason.

Work visas apply as an immigration status, DED is an administrative status.

[red states rule]

I can't watch this anymore.

This board is spiraling down the path of rightwing stupidity.


So ConHog is back and challenges ANYONE to a one on one debate on "has Obama exceeded his authority with the aforementioned announcement."

First come , first serve if any of you have the chops.


Damn that was a short exile/retirement

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk061712dAPR20120615074612.jpg

[Kathianne]

Be careful what you wish for. The rules of unintended consequences and what goes around, comes around.

http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2428


...The decision to cease enforcing particular provisions of immigration law was not, as some commentors have asserted, a presidential usurpation of legislative power. The Executive branch is not making law, as was the case when it attempted to declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant in violation of the powers granted to the EPA by Congress. Instead, this is a case where the President disagrees with a law on the books, and thus unilaterally decides not to carry it out.


We have a long history of a passive aggressive presidency. Thomas Jefferson refused to spend $50,000 to buy gunboats to patrol the Mississippi River and America’s border with the French colony on its western bank when his purchase of Louisiana in 1803 made moot that border. I’m sure there was some Congressman in whose district those boats were to be made who objected to this first use of presidential impoundment (http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2308) power. Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were both famously cool toward the idea of enforcing the Volstead Act outlawing alcohol. Grover Cleveland didn’t fill numerous appointments, believing that government payrolls had grown bloated through patronage and spoils.


Since the very beginning of our Nation’s founding, there has been (by design) a healthy tension between the Legislative branch, which writes laws, and the Executive Branch, which executes those laws. Laws were only de facto valid when they were both on the books and willingly enforced. As every law is a limit upon the people, this created a very high barrier to restrictions on individual rights. In modern parlance we would say that it is a “feature, not a flaw,” as the tension between the branches reinforces the desired ideal that the default position of the federal government is inaction.


If President Obama’s frustration over a “do nothing” Congress prompts him to respond with a “do nothing” government, then I’m all for it. Imagine the good that could be done if a Republican president used Obama’s precedent: By not filling tens of thousands of authorized positions, he could shrink the size of government. By refusing to enforce some environmental regulations, he could remove barriers to economic growth and greater employment. By canceling unnecessary weapon systems, he could remove the influence of earmarks from the defense budget.


Instead of complaining about Obama’s decision, conservatives should applaud anything which increases government inaction. Meanwhile Democrats who applaud the President’s decision for the short-term advantage it might give them, should be very wary of handing a precedential hammer to a future Republican president who could use it to smash big government.

[red states rule]

http://intelwars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/breaking-news-california-pays-college-for-illegals-remember-this-the-next-time-you-write-a-tuition-check.jpg