fixed
what say you about obeezy's illegal actions concerning immigration
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
fixed
Good for the president for prioritizing who to deport. I also like that he gives otherwise law abiding citizens a temporary status if they come forward and pay back taxes.
Don't like that he spun this as Republicans fault he had to act. When the Dems held the House, Senate and White House they didn't pass a bill either. Shame to see him play political games with this. But that is his M.O. and I expected nothing less.
I have not read the order but I wonder what he means by those ocmign across illegally now have a greater chance of getting caught.
But if it increases border security, stops the future flow of illegal imiigrants, deports those here that are breaking other laws and allows those that are hard working, honest people a chance to stay then I am for it. Political point scoring aside of course.
Don't like that he spun this as Republicans fault he had to act. When the Dems held the House, Senate and White House they didn't pass a bill either. Shame to see him play political games with this. But that is his M.O. and I expected nothing less.
I have not read the order but I wonder what he means by those ocmign across illegally now have a greater chance of getting caught.
But if it increases border security, stops the future flow of illegal imiigrants, deports those here that are breaking other laws and allows those that are hard working, honest people a chance to stay then I am for it. Political point scoring aside of course.
I fully support a secured border where we completely control who cames in and who leaves our country.
Having said that I completely agree that the current process to obtain legal permission to enter the US is a train wreck. Completely unrealistic for most people, hence the illegal immigration problem we have.
Secure the borders, simplify the process and dramatically increase the number of those we allow to enter. That is truly reforming the immigration process to me.
iawtp
framer
Well-Known Member
For one, there is that pesky constitutional requirement to uphold the laws to the best of one's ability. That doesn't include the "I don't WANNA!" defense. Secondly, completely contradicting a raft of federal and state laws about who is employable and who isn't falls well outside the "prosecutorial discretion" argument. I wouldn't hire anyone with an Obamacard. And I can see businesses filing lawsuits and having standing here.
framer
Well-Known Member
It does none of those things and makes many of these problems even worse. The political point scoring is pretty much the whole of it.
I am reserving actual judgment until I see the details of it.
You understand that what Obama did was legal, right?
framer
Well-Known Member
Parts were and parts weren't. As I mentioned, Obama can't rewrite employment law. His only hope is that nobody sues him for it. You understand that Obama breaks the law all of the time, right?
lol. no I don't realize that Obama breaks the law all the time. I usually stay out of the neocon echochamber.
Made me smile.
In all seriousness wasn't there a ruling in court that the President broke the law on his revisions to the ACA?
I've been to court before. One time it was for grand theft. I was stealing from my employer (this, as with all my criminal activity, took place before I was an adult). One item I had stolen I had also returned to a different location and received the lowest sale price in cash. The amount I was accused of stealing included both the retail price of the item and the amount I had received in cash. I took exception. I explained to the judge that I had only stolen the amount that I had received in cash, having returned the item itself. The judge actually seemed amused as he agreed with me and lowered the amount of restitution I owed.
Anyway, technicalities.
Yea it would be nice.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If the government decided to only prosecute African Americans and not whites for some crime (or vice versa), would that be within the scope of executive authority? Fact of the matter, there is a very fine line between selective enforcement of the law and making the law.
My own feelings on this particular issue are mixed. There are few things that bug me more about politics than when the leaders of Congress won't even allow a vote on something. So, if I understand things correctly about what the House leadership did with the Senate immigration bill last year, I am very much annoyed by the House Republican leadership on that.
Is this action by Obama the right response? I'm not sure... it does indeed smack of him making the law via selective enforcement.
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
El Veto Vato does not go far enough. If Obama has spine he will amnesty all.
Why do that when you've self pledged to go away in a few months. Or you stop posting before you get to your goal.
Either way, a win for me (and other people with an above room temp IQ)
I see where he's required to uphold and defend the Constitution. Perhaps you could point out the part where he is required to show relentless prosecutory zeal?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Name the laws he is contradicting, please.
One side claims that the intention all along was that there would be supplemented federal exchanges in states that refused to set up state exchanges and uses a relaxed interpretation to claim federal, subsidized exchanges are not prohibited in the law, the other side uses a very literal reading of the law to claim that these federal exchanges are illegal.
At least, I think that's the issue you meant.
framer
Well-Known Member
Here's one of the latest:
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ntments-illegal-unanimous-supreme-court-finds
A unanimous opinion by the Supreme court saying that Obama acted illegally good enough for your fragile sensitivities? Maybe they are all racist. . .
Since that particular issue (when the Senate conducts no business, but a handful of members open each day to avoid technically being in recess, can the President none-the-less make a recess appointment in light of the de facto state of recess?) had never before been addressed in law or in court before, there was no way to know that it was illegal when the President performed the appointments.
I'm not surprised you couldn't find a single immigration law being violated by the President here. Not at all.