Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

[werepossum]

He has no DUTY to issue orders to the executive branch but as all executive power is vested in the president all executive direction must come from him, either explicitly or by delegated authority. All of his decisions while carrying out the functions of his office carry the force of law unless they are contrary to lawful statute or exceed his powers granted by the constitution. Executive orders that you're talking about is simply a formalized process for it.

Since all executive orders that are lawful derive their authority from powers given to the president by the constitution or powers given to him by legislation, you're arguing that the president shouldn't be able to use his constitutional and statutory authority.

it should be clear how dumb that is.

Yeah, nothing dumb about arguing that Obama exceeding his Constitutional and statutory authority (by his own admission on multiple occasions) is actually Obama exercising his Constitutional and statutory authority. I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Just for those who honestly don't know, an Executive Order not specifically overturned has the force of law. An Executive Order is the President creating his own legislation, bypassing Congress, in a way that a simple policy directive is not.

EDIT: Although I suppose with this precedent, an anti-illegal President could just as easily ignore Obama's actions as actual legislation.

This is a brilliant move by President Obama.

1: He gets what he wants, Amnesty.
2: He forces Republicans to shut up and agree... or divide themselves.

America is fundamentally transformed AND the GOP is destroyed.
Win/Win.

Remember folks, HALF the Republicans want Amnesty. Do not forget the !@#$ Bush and McCain pulled eight years ago.

Yep, and it's no coincidence he's doing this on National Revolution Day. Although it's worth pointing out that it's only a brilliant move is one's intention is to destroy the nation as it's currently constituted. But then it's pretty clear now what Obama means by fundamentally transforming the nation.

Actually this would be a good point to clear up some confusion I have. I assumed that by passing a bill, these EOs could be rolled back regardless of whether Obama wants them or not, by including the adequate language in the bill. That's not true? It's something he has to do?

In theory, yes. Congress can pass legislation overturning any Executive Order. In practice, probably not. Why would a President explicitly violating one existing body of legislation agree to abide by another, newer body of legislation saying the same thing? Maybe SCOTUS can stop him - maybe - but I suspect he'll be Emperor (again, his definition) for the remainder of his term. After that, too many powerful Democrats want their own shot at the throne to ignore that bit of the Constitution.

One other possibility here is that Obama may well not use a formal Executive Order, but instead repeat his "policy directive" for his DACA. Congress can easily overturn an Executive Order (and thanks to Harry Reid, can do so on a simple majority vote) but overturning a policy directive requires either re-passing the existing ignored legislation (see above) or working through the courts.

I'll be amazed if the Emperor doesn't grant a blanket legalization in time to register the illegals for the 2016 election. This started with Kennedy changing the immigration quotas to change the nation's character; if you can't win the American voters, bring in new voters.

 

[werepossum]

Boomer said it was because Mitt was a Mormon.

To be fair, a number of Republicans stayed home or voted third party for the same reason. And others of both or no parties were turned off by the way this very moderate Republican campaigned as a far right Republican. At the least it's dishonest; at worst, he might have actually governed that way.

I consider myself a left leaning centrist on most things, that being said fuck Obama he is just as bad as Reagan now in my book. Screw demarcates and their selling out our own citizens for entitlement voters, and screw republicans for selling out for a quick buck at the cost of our future. This is all just going to dumb down and divide our population. Remember all of you extreme liberals the pendulum will eventually swing to the other extreme when it’s done going left, this has happened throughout history and a lot of people will suffer for it unfortunately.

Reagan did NOT use Executive Orders or "policy directives" to implement amnesty; that's simply a lie the left is pushing to provide themselves with a bit of cover for low information voters. Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. It's a bipartisan problem, but the Dems are simply bypassing the legislative process to get what they want whereas the Pubbies did cooperate with the Dems to do it legally.

 

[Jaskalas]

Although it's worth pointing out that it's only a brilliant move is one's intention is to destroy the nation as it's currently constituted.

It stems from an ideology that America is a "land of immigrants". Thus open borders. Thus amnesty. Those who already live here be damned.

While it's true that we are a land of immigrants, that was our origin... our founding, our growth. At which point does this country mature, and stop trying to exponentially grow its population? When do we stop importing poverty?

Our economic golden era is over. The rest of the world is catching up and competing with us. We are no longer the global monopoly on production and economy. In terms of world share, Americans are becoming poorer every day. Adding to our burden does not help us.

As the world turns, so too must our role in it. We are not invincible or holding limitless wealth. We must roll back our armies, and tighten our belts.
Perhaps it is the girth around our waist that prevents us from seeing that.

 

[Fern]

Nope! It's called prioritizing resources. It's why the number of deported illegals with criminal backgrounds has gone up.
-snip-

May 13, 2014
Report: 36K criminals freed while awaiting deportation

NEW YORK - The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 convicted criminal aliens last year who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings, according to a report issued Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The group of released criminals includes those convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault, according to the report, which cites a document prepared by the ICE.

A majority of the releases were not required by law and were discretionary, the organization says.

According to the report, the 36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

193 homicide convictions
426 sexual assault convictions
303 kidnapping convictions
1,075 aggravated assault convictions
1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
9,187 dangerous drug convictions
16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions
303 flight escape convictions

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-36k-criminals-freed-while-awaiting-deportation/

Heckuva good job!

Fern

 

[theeedude]

So when will your said stop complaining about low pay?

What low pay? I am making bank in a globally competitive industry.
You can't compete? Boohoohoo.

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-36k-criminals-freed-while-awaiting-deportation/

Heckuva good job!

Fern

Thanks for reinforcing my point, Obama is doing what he can with a limited amount of resources.

The ICE issued a statement in response to the report, saying that most of the individuals described in the report were released under restrictions, such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision or surety bond.

The organizations said that in some cases, the ICE was required by law to release the individuals from custody.

"The releases required by court decisions account for a disproportionate number of the serious crimes listed in the report. For example, mandatory releases account for over 75% of the homicides listed," the statement said. "Others, typically those with less serious offenses, were released as a discretionary matter after career law enforcement officers made a judgment regarding the priority of holding the individual, given ICE's resources, and prioritizing the detention and removal of individuals who pose a risk to public safety or national security."

She went on to add that the ICE could use more detention capacity

 

[ivwshane]

What the flying fuck is your point? Mine stands... Your seems to be some sort of half assed deflection.

I guess if facts get in the way of your bullshit claims calling it a deflection is pretty convenient!

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for reinforcing my point, Obama is doing what he can with a limited amount of resources.

You didn't just jump the shark, you went dirty dancing with it.

 

[ivwshane]

To be fair, a number of Republicans stayed home or voted third party for the same reason. And others of both or no parties were turned off by the way this very moderate Republican campaigned as a far right Republican. At the least it's dishonest; at worst, he might have actually governed that way.


Reagan did NOT use Executive Orders or "policy directives" to implement amnesty; that's simply a lie the left is pushing to provide themselves with a bit of cover for low information voters. Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. It's a bipartisan problem, but the Dems are simply bypassing the legislative process to get what they want whereas the Pubbies did cooperate with the Dems to do it legally.

Uh what?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44317

Of course it was a bi partisan problem, the difference is that Reagan had a congress willing to work together, the current senate? Bi partisan bill passed! The house? Nothing!

So again, while your right wing talking points shit on Obamas efforts you (you as in people with similar views) say nothing about a republican house who continues to not do shit!

 

[ivwshane]

You didn't just jump the shark, you went dirty dancing with it.

Of course because anything that goes against your beliefs must be a progressive/liberal/democrat conspiracy!

 

[OrByte]

I love how republicans are so frothy.

froth on!

 

[OrByte]

By choosing not to deport people, he is ignoring the law that says they should be deported.


Yes word do have meanings.

He isn't choosing to NOT deport people.

He is also following the law.

where does it say otherwise?

edit: lol funny to see you state "Words Do have meaning" the ironing...

 

[werepossum]

Uh what?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44317

Of course it was a bi partisan problem, the difference is that Reagan had a congress willing to work together, the current senate? Bi partisan bill passed! The house? Nothing!

So again, while your right wing talking points shit on Obamas efforts you (you as in people with similar views) say nothing about a republican house who continues to not do shit!

To quote Reagan's Executive Order in its entirety:

Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens
September 29, 1981
Public Papers of the Presidents
Ronald Reagan<br>1981

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)), in view of the continuing problem of migrants coming to the United States, by sea, without necessary entry documents, and in order to carry out the suspension and interdiction of such entry which have concurrently been proclaimed, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of State shall undertake to enter into, on behalf of the United States, cooperative arrangements with appropriate foreign governments for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States by sea.

Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue appropriate instructions to the Coast Guard in order to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens and the interdiction of any defined vessel carrying such aliens.

(b) Those instructions shall apply to any of the following defined vessels:

(1) Vessels of the United States, meaning any vessel documented under the laws of the United States, or numbered as provided by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), or owned in whole or in part by the United States, a citizen of the United States, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State, Territory, District, Commonwealth, or possession thereof, unless the vessel has been granted nationality by a foreign nation in accord with Article 5 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).

(2) Vessels without nationality or vessels assimilated to vessels without nationality in accordance with paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).

(3) Vessels of foreign nations with whom we have arrangements authorizing the United States to stop and board such vessels.

(c) Those instructions to the Coast Guard shall include appropriate directives providing for the Coast Guard:

(1) To stop and board defined vessels, when there is reason to believe that such vessels are engaged in the irregular transportation of persons or violations of United States law or the law of a country with which the United States has an arrangement authorizing such action.

(2) To make inquiries of those on board, examine documents and take such actions as are necessary to establish the registry, condition and destination of the vessel and the status of those on board the vessel.

(3) To return the vessel and its passengers to the country from which it came, when there is reason to believe that an offense is being committed against the United States immigration laws, or appropriate laws of a foreign country with which we have an arrangement to assist; provided, however, that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent.

(d) These actions, pursuant to this Section, are authorized to be undertaken only outside the territorial waters of the United States.

Sec. 3. The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the fair enforcement of our laws relating to immigration (including effective implementation of this Executive Order) and the strict observance of our international obligations concerning those who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
September 29, 1981.​

Dude, you are attempting to conflate Reagan's Executive Order directing increased enforcement of existing immigration laws with Obama's systematic dismantling of enforcement of existing immigration laws.

I will do you a favor and assume that you are drunk or legally insane.

 

[OrByte]

Dude, you are attempting to conflate Reagan's Executive Order directing increased enforcement of existing immigration laws with Obama's systematic dismantling of enforcement of existing immigration laws.

I will do you a favor and assume that you are drunk or legally insane.

It doesn't work unless you SAY it with a Regan Impersonation!!

duuh.

 

[nixium]

A genuine question for the hardcore right wing.

Look, I can totally understand your "deportation-only" approach. I can also sympathize because it's infuriating to jump through every hoop in the law just to see that it didn't matter in the end.

That being said, there's a certain sizable segment of your peers (American citizens) who don't believe in the deportation-only approach. And it's not purely on racial lines.

Why do you think you can ever get deportation-only? Do you really think by ignoring the issue - blocking all bills - you can ever get to the deportation-only point?

Don't you think working on a compromise might get you some of your security stuff that you want?

By doing NOTHING, how are you improving the situation? President not enforcing the law? When was the last republican president who enforced the law?

I can also see the points about executive overreach, but as I understand, nothing he is doing is legally wrong, and can be overturned by an R president. So the issue is not the action, but the executive powers, which again I believe can be curtailed by Congress.

So essentially, what's the point of foaming at the mouth about this? Instead why not work on a solution?

 

[OrByte]

Obama isn't doing this "systematic dismantling of enforcement of existing immigration laws"

take a step back from the crazy.

"protective status" or "deffered action" isn't "dismantling of enforcement"

enforcement of immigration laws exist now, and it will exist tomorrow. And Obama will still be President. And people will still be happy/upset with him.

In the meantime, the "crazy" is overtaking you.

 

[nixium]

If anything, EADs will provide them some labor protections, because now they would have to get paid minimum wage/have to pay taxes, etc.

 

[Thebobo]

100% chance of certainty

 

[Matt1970]

Thanks for reinforcing my point, Obama is doing what he can with a limited amount of resources.

There really is no wrong that man can do is there?

 

[nixium]

Uh what?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44317

Of course it was a bi partisan problem, the difference is that Reagan had a congress willing to work together, the current senate? Bi partisan bill passed! The house? Nothing!

So again, while your right wing talking points shit on Obamas efforts you (you as in people with similar views) say nothing about a republican house who continues to not do shit!

Exactly. I don't understand how the do-nothing attitude of the house gets a pass.

 

[werepossum]

A genuine question for the hardcore right wing.

Look, I can totally understand your "deportation-only" approach. I can also sympathize because it's infuriating to jump through every hoop in the law just to see that it didn't matter in the end.

That being said, there's a certain sizable segment of your peers (American citizens) who don't believe in the deportation-only approach. And it's not purely on racial lines.

Why do you think you can ever get deportation-only? Do you really think by ignoring the issue - blocking all bills - you can ever get to the deportation-only point?

Don't you think working on a compromise might get you some of your security stuff that you want?

By doing NOTHING, how are you improving the situation? President not enforcing the law? When was the last republican president who enforced the law?

I can also see the points about executive overreach, but as I understand, nothing he is doing is legally wrong, and can be overturned by an R president. So the issue is not the action, but the executive powers, which again I believe can be curtailed by Congress.

So essentially, what's the point of foaming at the mouth about this? Instead why not work on a solution?

We don't work on a solution because there is no common ground between the left and the right, exclusive of the Pubbies' elite. The left needs and wants these people here, and will only accept solutions to that end. The right does not need or want these people here, and will only accept solutions to that end. Time after time we've compromised; time after time the amnesty and welfare provisions take effect, but the increased border security and increased enforcement becomes decreased border security and decreased enforcement. There's not even a bump where we can pretend otherwise.

Given that, why would we continue to help the Dems fundamentally transform America into Mexico? We LIKE America. We like America a lot more than Mexico.

Beyond that, why would anyone simply go along with a President giving himself dictatorial powers to unilaterally change the law?

 

[Fern]

A genuine question for the hardcore right wing.

Look, I can totally understand your "deportation-only" approach. I can also sympathize because it's infuriating to jump through every hoop in the law just to see that it didn't matter in the end.

That being said, there's a certain sizable segment of your peers (American citizens) who don't believe in the deportation-only approach. And it's not purely on racial lines.

Why do you think you can ever get deportation-only? Do you really think by ignoring the issue - blocking all bills - you can ever get to the deportation-only point?

There's no real "deportation-only approach", it's a 'secure the border first approach' that is wanted. We've done the amnesty thing before, we see what it results in. In ends up being a motivation to come here illegally in hopes of catching the next amnesty phase.

Don't you think working on a compromise might get you some of your security stuff that you want?

Sure, but border security is nonnegotiable because, again, we've seen the results when there's no real border security.

I would also add there's not a lot of confidence in any compromise when the Exec can pick and choose what to enforce, whether it's by prosecutorial discretion or EO.

I can also see the points about executive overreach, but as I understand, nothing he is doing is legally wrong, and can be overturned by an R president. So the issue is not the action, but the executive powers, which again I believe can be curtailed by Congress.

So essentially, what's the point of foaming at the mouth about this? Instead why not work on a solution?

I think you may understand wrong. Lawrence O'Donnell, who is about as liberal as one can be and still host a mainstream TV news show, has been asking Democratic politicians what is the legal basis for Obama's authority for his expected EO. So far, not one has been able to provide an answer, and mind you these people are lawyers by trade.

The constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, a liberal, is convinced Obama has no legal authority for this too.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

A genuine question for the hardcore left wing:

What power (if any) do you feel Obama absolutely does not have, even if he really really wants it and sees a desperate need for it?

 

[Thebobo]

I am proud he is doing this.

Its not permanent, when it comes time to expire it will have to be dealt with. Brilliant move imo.

 

[OrByte]

I think you may understand wrong. Lawrence O'Donnell, who is about as liberal as one can be and still host a mainstream TV news show, has been asking Democratic politicians what is the legal basis for Obama's authority for his expected EO. So far, not one has been able to provide an answer, and mind you these people are lawyers by trade.

The constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, a liberal, is convinced Obama has no legal authority for this too.

Fern

OH nooesss here is an Attorney on FOX NEWS LATINO that is convinced that Obama has legal authority to do this:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/op...gration-action-stands-on-solid-legal-footing/

oh man...I'm beside myself. Hmmm why would Fox News LATINO run such a batshit crazy article?!!?