Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

[werepossum]

Congress passed laws addressing the 11+ million who are already here illegally? Really? Did they also pass a law that dealt with legal visitors who's visas then expired and as a result are now here illegally? Really? Did congress pass a bill that stops businesses from hiring illegal immigrants and makes it a requirement to verify a worker is legal? Did congress pass a bill that dealt with boarder security in a way that's stops most illegals? Did congress fund any of the above to handle the increases of illegal immigrants since the last declaration of amnesty? Did congress pass any bill that prevents the president from doing what he's currently doing?

So no, congress didn't pass any bill addressing any one of those issues.


What law has Obama broken? You've repeated this claim along with your anti immigration buddy michael but you have yet to show how Obama broke the law.

Are you really so dense as to believe that, say, a law making it illegal to rob a bank is somehow silent on what happens when someone robs a bank? There is an entire body of federal law devoted to this subject, the much-amended Immigration and Naturalization Act.

http://www.uscis.gov/laws/laws-regulations-and-guides-immigration-and-nationality-act

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

Hint: Nowhere in there does it include the words "or whatever the current President wants it to be." Every bit of this is covered.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you really so dense as to believe that, say, a law making it illegal to rob a bank is somehow silent on what happens when someone robs a bank? There is an entire body of federal law devoted to this subject, the much-amended Immigration and Naturalization Act.

http://www.uscis.gov/laws/laws-regulations-and-guides-immigration-and-nationality-act

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

Hint: Nowhere in there does it include the words "or whatever the current President wants it to be." Every bit of this is covered.

As usual you completely ignored the fucking point! But I'm glad you think laws passed over 30 years ago are so good and well thought out and iron clad that no new laws are needed to address the current issues.

I guess you now believe health care has been fixed, after all, the ACA was passed and it's intention was to address health care issues.

No? You disagree with that statement? What's wrong? Did you just realize how retarded your logic is? No? You are going to stick to your guns on this? CBD has got you bad I guess.

 

[werepossum]

As usual you completely ignored the fucking point! But I'm glad you think laws passed over 30 years ago are so good and well thought out and iron clad that no new laws are needed to address the current issues.

I guess you now believe health care has been fixed, after all, the ACA was passed and it's intention was to address health care issues.

No? You disagree with that statement? What's wrong? Did you just realize how retarded your logic is? No? You are going to stick to your guns on this? CBD has got you bad I guess.

So if the next President is, say, Rick Perry, you're fine with him just "prioritizing" away the ACA.

"We're going to concentrate on terrorists who don't provide ACA-compliant health insurance, so everyone else should feel free to ignore the law. In fact, I'm going to set up committees to help people break the ACA."

Sound good? Or would that sound like a President making himself a dictator?

 

[ivwshane]

So if the next President is, say, Rick Perry, you're fine with him just "prioritizing" away the ACA.

"We're going to concentrate on terrorists who don't provide ACA-compliant health insurance, so everyone else should feel free to ignore the law. In fact, I'm going to set up committees to help people break the ACA."

Sound good? Or would that sound like a President making himself a dictator?

I really don't know how you can be so fucking dense at times and at other times make reasonable comments, are you bi-polar? Are you schizophrenic? Are you supposed to be on some type of medication?


But to answer your question which should have been clear from the beginning of this thread, I want a government that addresses and fixes problems. The governmental body in charge of doing that is congress, so my hope is that congress will work to address issues and come up with long lasting solutions. Any failure to do that, I will have no problem with the president doing whatever he can that is within his power to fix or address issues. And no that doesn't mean I'll agree with whatever solutions presidents come up with.

 

[theeedude]

So if the next President is, say, Rick Perry, you're fine with him just "prioritizing" away the ACA.

"We're going to concentrate on terrorists who don't provide ACA-compliant health insurance, so everyone else should feel free to ignore the law. In fact, I'm going to set up committees to help people break the ACA."

Sound good? Or would that sound like a President making himself a dictator?

Republicans de-prioritize regulation enforcement when they are in the White House anyways.

 

[Bowfinger]

Wrong question IMO.

Perhaps, but you'll need to address that to those asserting Obama broke the law. I'm merely asking for specifics about these laws he's allegedly broken. I've yet to see such specifics.

The (first) question is what gives this kind of power to the President? The Constitution was not written to describe what the President could NOT do, but rather what he was authorized to do.

That's fair, but I think we still need to discuss specifics. What powers -- specifically -- has Obama taken that exceed his authority under the law? Pragmatically, how does his use of these powers exceed precedents set by other administrations? For example, I don't know if there's any specific provision allowing discretion in enforcement, but every administration and LEO practices it. It's an inevitable reality given finite resources; you can't prosecute everything, so you focus on those things that matter most. Has Obama somehow taken this to an unprecedented level, and if so, how...specifically?

If we proceed along your apparent position - the President can do whatever (s)he wants as long as not expressly forbidden

That is a complete -- and absurd -- straw man. I've made no such suggestion. Perhaps you have me confused with the voices in Michal's and Werepossum's heads.

- we'll be finding new powers forever (or whomever holds the office will). In short, this type attitude is propelling us along to a autocracy.

If you're sincerely interested look up Jonathan Turley etc.

Fern

If you have a link I'll be happy to look at it, but I'm not interested enough in the topic to do a lot of digging. I think the issue of illegal immigration is largely political theater. It's a tough problem with no good solutions, but it's a hot issue with certain voter segments, so both parties exploit it.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong question IMO. The (first) question is what gives this kind of power to the President? The Constitution was not written to describe what the President could NOT do, but rather what he was authorized to do. If we proceed along your apparent position - the President can do whatever (s)he wants as long as not expressly forbidden - we'll be finding new powers forever (or whomever holds the office will). In short, this type attitude is propelling us along to a autocracy.

If you're sincerely interested look up Jonathan Turley etc.

Fern

Why is it so hard for you guys to provide actual legal analysis of the statutes in question?

Wait, we all know why.

 

[fskimospy]

Congress DID pass laws addressing the situation. Obama is ignoring them because he doesn't like them.


Or you could, you know, read the memo. Wouldn't do any good, I know, for everything you read always says exactly what you need it to say.

But I'll repeat: My position is EXACTLY what Obama has said repeatedly for six years. The law didn't change, the Constitution didn't change, and Obama's job description didn't change. He simply decided to rise above the law. And as always, you guys are happy with that, as long as it's a lefty doing the lawbreaking.

Yes of course progressives are engaging in a conspiracy to be evil or something.

You don't care what dozens of legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum say, you found a memo that tells you what you want to hear. It is ironic that you're doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing.

I have no doubt that when the OLC delivers opinions you disagree with you will denounce it as a tool of Obama. Hell, I imagine even you are self aware enough to realize this is true.

You don't like what the overwhelming majority of legal analysis tells you because it runs contrary to the narrative you made in your head. Contrary information is ignored because it means you might be wrong.

I don't know why you're acting so ridiculous. You think the president has instituted an imperial, lawless presidency. You would think finding out that he hasn't would make you happy. Instead it enrages you further because you don't actually care about that. You're a culture warrior and he is on the wrong team.

 

[chucky2]

Just wondering, is the official subject change talking point that it may be legal? I just want to know when I can tune in to find the next excuse we're coddling Millions of competitors to US children/workers and inviting 10's of Millions more (as we know from decades of data, the entity that is Politician works to ensure border security is a joke). Is there a new wag the dog next week?

 

[pcgeek11]

Just like what has been claimed all along. Illegal Action for Obama to grant amnesty in this fashion. I think when this does make it to the supreme court they will rule like wise.

Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama's move to halt deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants violates the Constitution -- but it's not clear that the ruling will have any immediate impact.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, became the first judge to rule on the legality of Obama's executive overhaul of immigration rules when he issued his unusual opinion in a criminal case.

Obama's action violates the Constitution's separation of powers and its "take care clause," Schwab said.

He wrote that Obama's action "goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights."

 

[fskimospy]

Just like what has been claimed all along. Illegal Action for Obama to grant amnesty in this fashion. I think when this does make it to the supreme court they will rule like wise.

You realize that the judges opinion has been roundly laughed at for being ridiculous by everyone up to and including John-fucking-Yoo, right?

It will certainly be overturned.

 

[cabri]

You realize that the judges opinion has been roundly laughed at for being ridiculous by everyone up to and including John-fucking-Yoo, right?

It will certainly be overturned.

How can an OPINION be overturned?
There is no ruling on the immigration policy - this was in reference to a specific case pending in front of him.

 

[Jhhnn]

How can an OPINION be overturned?
There is no ruling on the immigration policy - this was in reference to a specific case pending in front of him.

True. It was just an opportunity for a wingnut rant under the mantle of authority.

The most remarkable thing about it is the reaction of the Faithful. The judge is just talking trash, but they seem to think it matters because it confirms their own bias.

 

[fskimospy]

How can an OPINION be overturned?
There is no ruling on the immigration policy - this was in reference to a specific case pending in front of him.

Hum, because judicial rulings are also known as opinions?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion

It was in fact a ruling on obama's immigration policy but you're partly right. His ruling on obama's policy was immaterial to the case at hand. That is one of many reasons it will be overturned.

 

[schmuckley]

Here's something:
To everyone who is here legally:
If you're looking for a job,it just just got 80% harder to get one.

 

[werepossum]

Here's something:
To everyone who is here legally:
If you're looking for a job,it just just got 80% harder to get one.

Jobs are so twentieth century. Hip people know what's really hot is Uncle Sugar's swinging teat.

 

[pcgeek11]

You realize that the judges opinion has been roundly laughed at for being ridiculous by everyone up to and including John-fucking-Yoo, right?

It will certainly be overturned.

We shall see...