or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüĆĶ Obama Ends The Tyranny Of Exclusion For Mexican Migrants Under Thirty.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ūüĆĶ Obama Ends The Tyranny Of Exclusion For Mexican Migrants Under Thirty.

Poll Results: What do you think of Obama's new policy

 
  • 0% (0)
    I'd support it only if a Republican had issued the executive order
  • 0% (0)
    I'll have to wait for Romney's opinion before I can form my own
  • 50% (2)
    I don't support it
  • 50% (2)
    I support it
4 Total Votes  
post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 

More here- 

 

"Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

 

 

The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently under 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, remained in school or served in the military.

These qualifications resemble in some ways those of the so-called Dream Act, a measure blocked by Congress in 2010that was geared to establish a path toward citizenship for certain young illegal immigrants. The administration's action on Friday, which stops deportations but does not offer citizenship, is being undertaken by executive order and does not require legislation. It was announced by the Department of Homeland Security.

What the younger immigrants will obtain, officials said, is the ability to apply for a two-year "deferred action" that effectively removes the threat of deportation for up to two years, with repeated extensions. "This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary. "It is an exercise of discretion."

Officials estimated that the new policy would cover about 800,000 people.

People whose deferrals are approved will then be able to apply for work permits, which will be dealt with case by case, an official said.

Details were first reported by The Associated Press.

President Obama was expected to discuss the new policy in the White House Rose Garden Friday afternoon. The plan is expected to be popular among immigrant citizens, especially Hispanics, a key voting bloc in the upcoming elections. But it is likely to provoke some political dispute as well.

And as a matter of executive power, officials said, it could be reversed by a future administration's fiat."

~ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?hp

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 68

I'll vote once I come to a decision, but I'm leaning towards supporting it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 68

Hands, your thread title is laughable.  The "Tyranny of Exclusion?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Secondly, and even more importantly:  Call this what it is.  Obama made a nakedly political, desperate move to NOT ENFORCE THE LAW.  He went around Congress, thereby again trampling the Constitution.  Congress passing the DREAM Act is one thing.  The President unilaterally declaring new law (and that's what it damn well is) is frightening and repugnant.  

 

Jazz, I'm frankly surprised at you.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Jazz, I'm frankly surprised at you.  

 

Surprised that I want to study more than a New York Times article in forming an opinion on the matter?

 

This part does, of course, concern me:

Quote:
Mr. Obama, under the mantra "we can't wait," has made a practice of pushing parts of his agenda forward by executive order when he cannot get action from Congress. But as a matter of executive power, officials said, this new policy could be reversed by the fiat of a future administration.

 

You know I'm opposed to legislation by decree.

 

Interestingly enough, you seem to forget that our wars over the past few decades have ALL been by presidential decree, not acts of Congress as mandated by our Constitution. And you support that, don't you?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 68

The duplicity of the Obama Administration is staggering. What is the deal with this favoritism towards the Hispanic community? Everyone else has to abide by the law, so why this great exception? There was a case recently in my neighborhood where an English person who had overstayed her visa for 9 days was deported.... I guess thats the law. But meanwhile, thousands of Mexicans in the same neighborhood who came into the country illegally, work without documentation, and even claim benefits on the taxpayer, are overlooked. is that the same law at work? Or is challenging this status quo considered "racist" by the "politically correct" crew?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The duplicity of the Obama Administration is staggering. What is the deal with this favoritism towards the Hispanic community? Everyone else has to abide by the law, so why this great exception? There was a case recently in my neighborhood where an English person who had overstayed her visa for 9 days was deported.... I guess thats the law. But meanwhile, thousands of Mexicans in the same neighborhood who came into the country illegally, work without documentation, and even claim benefits on the taxpayer, are overlooked. is that the same law at work? Or is challenging this status quo considered "racist" by the "politically correct" crew?

Isn't it obvious that there situations are quite different, as are the numbers? Also consider the English people still have a legitimate case that there country was stolen from them illegally. That's just a straight ford fact. But that's not important, what's important is the tyranny of exclusion. Can you imagine how awful it must be to have millions of people wishing you would leave the country and have laws in place that prevent you from being free to live as you wish? Do you really want to deny "unalienable rights" to millions of people, many of them children?

 

Here's some numbers-

 

"The 1.4 million estimate includes 700,000 unauthorized immigrants who are ages 18 to 30 but arrived in the U.S as children and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from high school; and an additional 700,000 who are under the age of 18 and are enrolled in school. This includes 150,000 who are currently enrolled in high school."

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/15/barack-obama-end-deportation-undocumented-migrants

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #7 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hands, your thread title is laughable.  The "Tyranny of Exclusion?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Secondly, and even more importantly:  Call this what it is.  Obama made a nakedly political, desperate move to NOT ENFORCE THE LAW.  He went around Congress, thereby again trampling the Constitution.  Congress passing the DREAM Act is one thing.  The President unilaterally declaring new law (and that's what it damn well is) is frightening and repugnant.  

 

Jazz, I'm frankly surprised at you.  

I think it was DHS who authorised this. Obviously he had no other choice. The Repubs weren't about to vote for this, though Romney no doubt supports it, he'll no doubt try and make out it's all about King Obama The Dictator, even when all these people will now be able to breathe a huge sigh of relief. Disgusting.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #8 of 68

I have a problem with punishing these children and young adults for the actions of their parents. Were they just supposed to remain in their home countries while their parents came to the U.S.?

 

That said, I think this policy does create more incentive for people to come to this country illegally and does nothing to address the fundamental problems with immigration law and enforcement.

 

The timing of it is also obviously suspect and a blatant political move intended to gain votes and support for Obama in an election year.

 

Furthermore, the way it was implemented (executive order, aka "royal decree") is unconstitutional and supports the dangerous precedent of the Executive circumventing the other branches of government entirely, spitting on the very idea of "checks and balances". The excuse that it can be repealed by a future "royal decree" operates from the false premise that the Executive is supposed to have such power in the first place, and is intellectually dishonest. By the time anything is done about it, the effects of the policy will be irreversible.

 

Therefore, I oppose it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Isn't it obvious that there situations are quite different, as are the numbers? Also consider the English people still have a legitimate case that there country was stolen from them illegally. That's just a straight ford fact.

 

 

 

 

 WTF? Their country? The American people in the 1700s were under heavy manners from a tyrant thousands of miles overseas! They exercised their right to self determination...

 

Quote:

But that's not important, what's important is the tyranny of exclusion. Can you imagine how awful it must be to have millions of people wishing you would leave the country and have laws in place that prevent you from being free to live as you wish? Do you really want to deny "unalienable rights" to millions of people, many of them children?

 

Here's some numbers-

 

"The 1.4 million estimate includes 700,000 unauthorized immigrants who are ages 18 to 30 but arrived in the U.S as children and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from high school; and an additional 700,000 who are under the age of 18 and are enrolled in school. This includes 150,000 who are currently enrolled in high school."

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/15/barack-obama-end-deportation-undocumented-migrants

 

I understand what you are saying, but what is the real reason ObamaCorp is courting favor from the Hispanic community? Human rights? ha!

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #10 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

......

 

The timing of it is also obviously suspect and a blatant political move intended to gain votes and support for Obama in an election year.

 

You forgot about the immense power and reach of big agribusiness and its lobbyists.... THEY are who ObamaCorp answers to FIRST, in matters concerning Mexican (etc) immigration issues.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #11 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

You forgot about the immense power and reach of big agribusiness and its lobbyists.... THEY are who ObamaCorp answers to FIRST, in matters concerning Mexican (etc) immigration issues.

 

Oh, I didn't forget, I just didn't mention it. The relationships between the government and companies like Monsanto are beyond crony-capitalist, they are downright fascist.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

 

 WTF? Their country? The American people in the 1700s were under heavy manners from a tyrant thousands of miles overseas! They exercised their right to self determination...

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but what is the real reason ObamaCorp is courting favor from the Hispanic community? Human rights? ha!

Sammi, they stole a country. That's theft, and I believe there's a commandment written about it. I bet you wouldn't be too happy if Hawaii or Alaska tried to kill US troops and become independent. The tyranny, as you call it, wasn't actually that bad. The UK banned slavery well before the US and many citizens would benefit hugely from being part of the British Empire. But, this really isn't important because I've never met a single Brit who wants the US back. It's a great place, but it's also pretty corrupt and uncivilised. The US corporations of today have made the Royals of 1776 look like Mother Theresa. Compare how much corporations can give during an election in the UK versus the US. We have these laws to protect ourselves against exploitation. It never ceases to amaze me that so called "Tea Partiers" in the US would happily grant so much influence to corporations. It's beyond ironic.

 

Obama may have mixed motives, but that doesn't stop this from being an important first step to liberating these immigrants.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #13 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post
...Furthermore, the way it was implemented (executive order, aka "royal decree") is unconstitutional and supports the dangerous precedent of the Executive circumventing the other branches of government entirely, spitting on the very idea of "checks and balances". The excuse that it can be repealed by a future "royal decree" operates from the false premise that the Executive is supposed to have such power in the first place, and is intellectually dishonest. By the time anything is done about it, the effects of the policy will be irreversible.

 

Therefore, I oppose it.

Are you sure it's not constitutional, if so, can you say why? 

 

It's a DHS memorandum prioritising who gets rounded up, caged and sent packing because of their threat level. These young people are considered the least threatening, partly because they're the most American like having spent some of their formative years in the US-

 

 

"By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many ofthem. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities."

~ http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/15/12 at 4:06pm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Are you sure it's not constitutional, if so, can you say why? 

 

It's a DHS memorandum prioritising who gets rounded up, caged and sent packing because of their threat level. These young people are considered the least threatening, partly because they're the most American like having spent some of their formative years in the US-

 

 

"By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many ofthem. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities."

~ http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

 

If this policy was enacted through an executive order, as the NYT article states, it is unconstitutional. Executive orders - as they are employed today - are unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for the use of executive orders on the part of the President.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 68

Well from a constitutional and separation of powers perspective it pretty much goes like this:

 

- Legislative branch (Congress) makes the laws

- Executive branch (President) enforces the laws

 

Looks to me like the President wants to act like a de facto legislative branch by deciding, unilaterally which laws the executive branch will or will not enforce.

 

Sounds unconstitutional to me, at least in what its original intent probably was.

 

I understand that you, Hands, might be just fine with the means so long as the ends you desire are achieved. But you should be very wary of holding such a position. It is exactly those positions of convenience which are the sandy foundation on which liberty and civilization will collapse.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 68

Obama answers to Sorros and remember that. He pulls the strings and Obama does what he wants.
 

post #17 of 68

Obama is kissing the ass of the Latinos and other minorities for votes to become elected once again.That is the Democratic plan.

post #18 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Surprised that I want to study more than a New York Times article in forming an opinion on the matter?

 

This part does, of course, concern me:

 

You know I'm opposed to legislation by decree.

 

Interestingly enough, you seem to forget that our wars over the past few decades have ALL been by presidential decree, not acts of Congress as mandated by our Constitution. And you support that, don't you?

 

I'll address your conclusion below, but as to the wars:  Both Iraq wars and the Afghanistan war were specifically authorized by Congress.  Even Vietnam was authorized.   Now, Congress did not formally declare war.  It's a distinction without much difference, however.  Nothing really changes whether we "authorize" or "declare war," other than perhaps POW treatment, etc.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Isn't it obvious that there situations are quite different, as are the numbers? Also consider the English people still have a legitimate case that there country was stolen from them illegally. That's just a straight ford fact. But that's not important, what's important is the tyranny of exclusion. Can you imagine how awful it must be to have millions of people wishing you would leave the country and have laws in place that prevent you from being free to live as you wish? Do you really want to deny "unalienable rights" to millions of people, many of them children?

 

Here's some numbers-

 

"The 1.4 million estimate includes 700,000 unauthorized immigrants who are ages 18 to 30 but arrived in the U.S as children and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from high school; and an additional 700,000 who are under the age of 18 and are enrolled in school. This includes 150,000 who are currently enrolled in high school."

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/15/barack-obama-end-deportation-undocumented-migrants

 

I'm not entirely opposed to the Dream Act.  In fact, I actually support parts of it (e.g. military service for citizenship).  I agree that young children who were brought here should not be punished.  But really..you're tugging at heartstrings here?  Come on.  People don't get to live "as they wish" when they break the law.  Speaking of which, that's the problem.  The Obama admin just engaged in a cynical act of naked lawlessness.  They changed the law by fiat.  That is the real issue.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I think it was DHS who authorised this. Obviously he had no other choice. The Repubs weren't about to vote for this, though Romney no doubt supports it, he'll no doubt try and make out it's all about King Obama The Dictator, even when all these people will now be able to breathe a huge sigh of relief. Disgusting.

 

He had no other choice?  lol.gif  Obama said in 2011 that he couldn't do it on his own.  But oh look, he just DID.  It's an attack on Constitutional Democracy and it's disgraceful.   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I have a problem with punishing these children and young adults for the actions of their parents. Were they just supposed to remain in their home countries while their parents came to the U.S.?

 

That said, I think this policy does create more incentive for people to come to this country illegally and does nothing to address the fundamental problems with immigration law and enforcement.

 

The timing of it is also obviously suspect and a blatant political move intended to gain votes and support for Obama in an election year.

 

Furthermore, the way it was implemented (executive order, aka "royal decree") is unconstitutional and supports the dangerous precedent of the Executive circumventing the other branches of government entirely, spitting on the very idea of "checks and balances". The excuse that it can be repealed by a future "royal decree" operates from the false premise that the Executive is supposed to have such power in the first place, and is intellectually dishonest. By the time anything is done about it, the effects of the policy will be irreversible.

 

Therefore, I oppose it.

 

1.  Agreed. 

 

2.  Agreed.

 

3. Agreed. 

 

4.  Definitely agreed.  This is the real problem.  We can all debate the Dream Act, something Obama probably could have gotten done had he not been trying to have Pelosi and Reid ram healthcare down everyone's throats.  But doing it like this is egregious.  It's also a reversal of his comments during Fall, 2011, when he said he couldn't do it because Congress wouldn't do it.  It's sickening.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 68
Thread Starter 

@ mj, jazz and sdw

 

There's nothing at all unconstitutional about this. If anything Obama has done what you all often say is needed. He's seen a problem in the system, and rather than never achieving anything by being incessantly blocked by congress, he's gone straight to the issue, through the DHS, bypassing not only a very long wait, but also saving taxpayers dollars for all our overpaid politicians, and overworked police force. When he said he couldn't pass an executive order on this issue earlier, he meant it. That's why they've taken this action. It's not rocket science.

 

Here again is how they did it-

 

 

By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many ofthem. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities."

~ http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

 

It is completely legal and constitutional and if it wasn't I would not support it, and I don't think he would either.

 

 

I can't find the link now, after a lot of searching, but Ron Paul would lack the votes for much of his policies and would use the system in ways like this whenever he could to make up for it. Be interesting to see how you would react to that.

 

 


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/16/12 at 9:51am
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #20 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

@ mj, jazz and sdw

 

There's nothing at all unconstitutional about this. If anything Obama has done what you all often say is needed. He's seen a problem in the system, and rather than never achieving anything by being incessantly blocked by congress, he's gone straight to the issue, through the DHS, bypassing not only a very long wait

 

It is completely legal and constitutional and if it wasn't I would not support it, and I don't think he would either.

 

I disagree.

 

Your description above of what he's doing (regardless of methodology) appears to be clearly "stretching" the powers of the executive branch to effectively end-run Congress on a matter that has been decided legislatively and for which his branch is responsible for enforcement. In effect, he's trying to legislate from the executive branch. This is so completely obvious that only someone blindly partisan couldn't recognize what he's doing.

 

I also consider it naive of you to assume that if it wasn't constitutional he wouldn't do it. Since almost day one this administration has exercised new levels of creativity and boldness to be able to whatever it wants and end-run Congress, the courts and the constitution.

 

Again we're back to you supporting whatever means to achieve your desired ends.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I disagree.

 

Your description above of what he's doing (regardless of methodology) appears to be clearly "stretching" the powers of the executive branch to effectively end-run Congress on a matter that has been decided legislatively and for which his branch is responsible for enforcement. In effect, he's trying to legislate from the executive branch. This is so completely obvious that only someone blindly partisan couldn't recognize what he's doing.

 

I also consider it naive of you to assume that if it wasn't constitutional he wouldn't do it. Since almost day one this administration has exercised new levels of creativity and boldness to be able to whatever it wants and end-run Congress, the courts and the constitution.

 

Again we're back to you supporting whatever means to achieve your desired ends.

 

Well put.  It's changing the law.  They are openly stating that they are not going to follow the law.  They are making their own law.  "Prosecutorial discretion" is complete bullshit...they are implementing many of the provisions of the Dream Act.  Hands has no ground to stand on here. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Well put.  It's changing the law.  They are openly stating that they are not going to follow the law.  They are making their own law.  "Prosecutorial discretion" is complete bullshit...they are implementing many of the provisions of the Dream Act.  Hands has no ground to stand on here. 

All laws are at the discretion of the president, as all presidents have enjoyed. This is really nothing new, there's literally nothing to see here..move on, as the saying goes.

 

Try reading this if you still don't get it-

 

"Despite the massive allocation of resources Congress has dedicated to immigration enforcement activities, the funding has limits and the agency must make thoughtful decisions about prosecutorial priorities. In fact, the President has repeatedly announced that the Administration’s interior enforcement priority is the prosecution and removal of immigrants who have committed serious crimes. To ensure that this and other prioritization decisions are followed and implemented, it is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies within and outside of the immigration context to provide clear guidance and training to its officers about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This type of guidance is not unusual. In fact, numerous memos have been issued by the DHS and its predecessor INS over the years setting forth agency priorities and seeking to provide its officers with clear guideposts for carrying out those priorities. The challenge is often in ensuring that such guidance is understood and followed on the frontlines of immigration enforcement."

~ http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9078024/Memo_exec_branch_authority.pdf

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #23 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I disagree.

 

Your description above of what he's doing (regardless of methodology) appears to be clearly "stretching" the powers of the executive branch to effectively end-run Congress on a matter that has been decided legislatively and for which his branch is responsible for enforcement. In effect, he's trying to legislate from the executive branch. This is so completely obvious that only someone blindly partisan couldn't recognize what he's doing.

 

I also consider it naive of you to assume that if it wasn't constitutional he wouldn't do it. Since almost day one this administration has exercised new levels of creativity and boldness to be able to whatever it wants and end-run Congress, the courts and the constitution.

 

Again we're back to you supporting whatever means to achieve your desired ends.

You're just plain wrong. The discretion of the enforcement of laws is laid down by the executive branch, as has always been the case. Of course they did this because congress wouldn't do anything, that's no surprise to anyone. Unfortunately he's only been able to get a little done. If he hadn't even done this he would be being attacked for not using his powers when he could. It seems that the fact he only implemented a small piece of the Dream Act when he could have gone further, isn't enough to stop you guys all screaming he's unAmerican, unconstitutional and a criminal. Typical over the top, bullshit. And like I say Ron Paul is the one who would use these powers, thereby skirting congress because he'd have had so few votes, more than anyone else!

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #24 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You're just plain wrong. The discretion of the enforcement of laws is laid down by the executive branch, as has always been the case. Of course they did this because congress wouldn't do anything, that's no surprise to anyone. Unfortunately he's only been able to get a little done. If he hadn't even done this he would be being attacked for not using his powers when he could. It seems that the fact he only implemented a small piece of the Dream Act when he could have gone further, isn't enough to stop you guys all screaming he's unAmerican, unconstitutional and a criminal. Typical over the top, bullshit.

 

Well, I guess we disagree.

 

This is a matter of debate and degrees and areas of gray in which you are declaring black or white. Frankly you sound more like you're trying to convince yourself than anything else and I suspect it because you agree with the ends so the means are justifiable.

 

Furthermore, your words describing what he's doing ("implemented a small piece of the Dream Act") reveals the reality of his attempt to legislate from the White House.

 

All that said there's plenty of other reasons to accuse Obama of doing unconstitutional things. The guy's power hungry and, from day one, has bristled at the fact that President doesn't mean "king" or "dictator" or "I can do whatever I want because I'm President" so much that his administration has actively done its level best to work around the check and balances that have existed. This is simply the latest example.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Well, I guess we disagree.

 

This is a matter of debate and degrees and areas of gray in which you are declaring black or white. Frankly you sound more like you're trying to convince yourself than anything else and I suspect it because you agree with the ends so the means are justifiable.

 

Furthermore, your words describing what he's doing ("implemented a small piece of the Dream Act") reveals the reality of his attempt to legislate from the White House.

 

All that said there's plenty of other reasons to accuse Obama of doing unconstitutional things. The guy's power hungry and, from day one, has bristled at the fact that President doesn't mean "king" or "dictator" or "I can do whatever I want because I'm President" so much that his administration has actively done its level best to work around the check and balances that have existed. This is simply the latest example.

He's used his constitutionally granted powers and you want to attack him for it. He did this as a last resort to end the misery of these immigrants and he did it well within the law. He's had almost zero corporation from the GOP, who indeed fought to bring him down, despite the nations best interests, by consistently voting no, even when their policies where often part of the negotiations. He's compromised and got nothing in return. 

 

I don't know what you've said about the Ron Paul delegates. They've often managed to use the system to get far more delegates than was their fair share of the popular vote. Was that OK?

 

 

 

I'll leave you with this from May 2011-

 

 

There’s been growing pressure on President Obama to use his executive powers to provide relief to undocumented immigrants, particularly DREAM students. The White House maintains that the President does not have the power to take those actions, but he really does. On Friday, several top lawyers in the immigration advocacy movement provided the legal framework through which the President could protect DREAMers and others. The document is below. The press release from the American Immigration Council provides context:

 

President Obama‚Äôs insistence that his ‚Äúhands are tied‚ÄĚ by Congressional inaction on immigration has raised questions about how much executive power the President has when it comes to immigration. To this end, top immigration law experts, including former counsels to the agencies that manage immigration, have drafted a legal memo outlining the scope of executive branch authority and examples of its use in the immigration context.

 

Ben Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted upon release of the memo:

 

‚ÄúUltimately, responsibility for failing to reform our dysfunctional immigration system rests on Congress. However, it is rarely the case that a President‚Äės hands are tied by existing law‚ÄĒand where the President disagrees with current law, his or her policy choices regarding the implementation of that law take on even greater importance.¬† In the context of immigration, the President and his cabinet have a wide range of choices available that can ameliorate some of the worst excesses of current law.¬† The legal memo attempts to give a short review of these options and demonstrates how wide the ranges of choices really are.

 

No matter how definitive or rigid a law may appear, the exercise of executive branch authority is critical to the ultimate implementation of the law.¬† The opportunity to infuse executive branch actions with a generous spirit is always within a president‚Äôs reach.¬† The choice on immigration today is whether the President and his cabinet will act boldly to use their authority to improve the lives of millions, or will allow the current enforcement-only mindset to continue unabated.¬† Such choices will have an impact for years to come, and require thoughtful and diligent attention.‚ÄĚ

~ http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/legal_memo_shows_obamas_hands_arent_tied_on_immigration_he_has_power_to_pro/

 

And this short clip symbolising Obama's resolve- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SFXQfE4kk&feature=fvwp


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/16/12 at 5:00pm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #26 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

He's used his constitutionally granted powers and you want to attack him for it. He did this as a last resort to end the misery of these immigrants and he did it well within the law.

 

As I say, we disagree that this is within the scope of his constitutional powers. I'm sorry that you are so married to your acceptance of his approach that you feel I'm "attacking" Barack Obama. I'm merely expressing my opinion about the constitutionality of what he has done. I thought that was allowed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

He's had almost zero corporation from the GOP, who indeed fought to bring him down, despite the nations best interests, by consistently voting no, even when their policies where often part of the negotiations. He's compromised and got nothing in return.

 

Yes, you're right. Obama wasn't getting his way with the legislature, he chose to effectively legislate what he wanted on his own.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I don't know what you've said about the Ron Paul delegates. They've often managed to use the system to get far more delegates than was their fair share of the popular vote. Was that OK?

 

You continue to bring up Ron Paul in your thread about Obama's latest actions. I find this interesting. Is this simply your attempt to use a red herring to distract from the central issue you've started the thread about?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I disagree.

 

Your description above of what he's doing (regardless of methodology) appears to be clearly "stretching" the powers of the executive branch to effectively end-run Congress on a matter that has been decided legislatively and for which his branch is responsible for enforcement. In effect, he's trying to legislate from the executive branch. This is so completely obvious that only someone blindly partisan couldn't recognize what he's doing.

 

I also consider it naive of you to assume that if it wasn't constitutional he wouldn't do it. Since almost day one this administration has exercised new levels of creativity and boldness to be able to whatever it wants and end-run Congress, the courts and the constitution.

 

Again we're back to you supporting whatever means to achieve your desired ends.

You're just plain wrong. The discretion of the enforcement of laws is laid down by the executive branch, as has always been the case. Of course they did this because congress wouldn't do anything, that's no surprise to anyone. Unfortunately he's only been able to get a little done. If he hadn't even done this he would be being attacked for not using his powers when he could. It seems that the fact he only implemented a small piece of the Dream Act when he could have gone further, isn't enough to stop you guys all screaming he's unAmerican, unconstitutional and a criminal. Typical over the top, bullshit. And like I say Ron Paul is the one who would use these powers, thereby skirting congress because he'd have had so few votes, more than anyone else!

 



I'm sorry but your reasoning is completely wrong. No one is above the law and no one gets to selectively enforce or ignore the law. PERIOD.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 



I'm sorry but your reasoning is completely correct. No one is above the law sure, but laws can be selectively enforced at the discretion of the executive branch. PERIOD.

I agree.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #29 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 



I'm sorry but your reasoning is completely correct. No one is above the law sure, but laws can be selectively enforced at the discretion of the executive branch. PERIOD.

I agree that I am completely full of shit and also that selectively editing quotes is a cowardly way to attempt to debate something on which I am completely wrong.

 

I appreciate your candor and honesty there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 68
Thread Starter 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 



I'm sorry but your reasoning is completely correct. No one is above the law sure, but laws can be selectively enforced at the discretion of the executive branch. PERIOD.

I agree that I am completely correct and also that providing you with clear and irrefutable proof of my claims is an awesome way to debate something on which I am completely right about.

 

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 I appreciate your candor and honesty there.

You're welcome trumptman!

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You're welcome trumptman!

 

I'm sure most folks of a leftist persuasion will not be thanking or welcoming anyone if they create a precedent that any president can be above the law. Obama likely will not be reelected and folks like yourself should think about whether they want a President Romney to believe they do not need to enforce the law or can ignore Congress when they declare that body has not done their bidding.

 

I'm sure someone will be saying thanks then. The real question is if you'll want to say you're welcome then.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

All laws are at the discretion of the president, as all presidents have enjoyed. This is really nothing new, there's literally nothing to see here..move on, as the saying goes.

 

Try reading this if you still don't get it-

 

"Despite the massive allocation of resources Congress has dedicated to immigration enforcement activities, the funding has limits and the agency must make thoughtful decisions about prosecutorial priorities. In fact, the President has repeatedly announced that the Administration’s interior enforcement priority is the prosecution and removal of immigrants who have committed serious crimes. To ensure that this and other prioritization decisions are followed and implemented, it is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies within and outside of the immigration context to provide clear guidance and training to its officers about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This type of guidance is not unusual. In fact, numerous memos have been issued by the DHS and its predecessor INS over the years setting forth agency priorities and seeking to provide its officers with clear guideposts for carrying out those priorities. The challenge is often in ensuring that such guidance is understood and followed on the frontlines of immigration enforcement."

~ http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9078024/Memo_exec_branch_authority.pdf

 

What the..huh?  All laws are NOT "at the discretion" of the President.  Presidents have tried to argue for that power (and continue to).  Sometimes they get favorable legal opinions from their administration attorneys to allow certain actions under the law (such as Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques).  They even try to say they won't follow laws in the future with signing statements.  Bush used these frequently...it's something I opposed then, and oppose today.   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You're just plain wrong. The discretion of the enforcement of laws is laid down by the executive branch, as has always been the case. Of course they did this because congress wouldn't do anything, that's no surprise to anyone. Unfortunately he's only been able to get a little done. If he hadn't even done this he would be being attacked for not using his powers when he could. It seems that the fact he only implemented a small piece of the Dream Act when he could have gone further, isn't enough to stop you guys all screaming he's unAmerican, unconstitutional and a criminal. Typical over the top, bullshit. And like I say Ron Paul is the one who would use these powers, thereby skirting congress because he'd have had so few votes, more than anyone else!

 

That's debatable.  Certainly, there is prosecutorial discretion.  However, the question becomes "at one point does discretion actually and effectively change the law in question?"  For example, can the administration refuse to federally prosecute any murder charges?  What about extortion?  Distribution of cocaine?  The administration cannot simply ignore the law.  To do so is effectively writing new law.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

I'm sure most folks of a leftist persuasion will not be thanking or welcoming anyone if they create a precedent that any president can be above the law. Obama likely will not be reelected and folks like yourself should think about whether they want a President Romney to believe they do not need to enforce the law or can ignore Congress when they declare that body has not done their bidding.

 

I'm sure someone will be saying thanks then. The real question is if you'll want to say you're welcome then.

 

All of that is true.  The real stank on this comes from Obama's statement last November, where he claimed he couldn't go around Congress on this issue.  Then he, uh, went around Congress on this issue.  Fortunately, I don't think this naked political move is actually going to translate into votes.  We're talking about 800,000 people here, none of whom can legally vote.  He's already pissed off many Hispanics due to his gay marriage  stance.  If they see this as the brazen political ploy, it may not help.  And in the meantime, he's pissed off everyone else...as usual. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

What the..huh?  All laws are NOT "at the discretion" of the President.  Presidents have tried to argue for that power (and continue to).  Sometimes they get favorable legal opinions from their administration attorneys to allow certain actions under the law (such as Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques).  They even try to say they won't follow laws in the future with signing statements.  Bush used these frequently...it's something I opposed then, and oppose today.   

 

 

 

That's debatable.  Certainly, there is prosecutorial discretion.  However, the question becomes "at one point does discretion actually and effectively change the law in question?"  For example, can the administration refuse to federally prosecute any murder charges?  What about extortion?  Distribution of cocaine?  The administration cannot simply ignore the law.  To do so is effectively writing new law.  

 

 

All of that is true.  The real stank on this comes from Obama's statement last November, where he claimed he couldn't go around Congress on this issue.  Then he, uh, went around Congress on this issue.  Fortunately, I don't think this naked political move is actually going to translate into votes.  We're talking about 800,000 people here, none of whom can legally vote.  He's already pissed off many Hispanics due to his gay marriage  stance.  If they see this as the brazen political ploy, it may not help.  And in the meantime, he's pissed off everyone else...as usual. 

 

This might make for some excellent partisan Obama bashing, but it's well within the law, indeed the discretion of the implementation of these laws was passed by congress and written into the bill.

 

No president is going to excerpt his authority unduly, at least to the point where he/she could be impeached, but even on cases of murder and drug dealing the president can still alter who the law falls down on. On most matters the president will simply require the law be enacted as written, but, and especially here, there are more pressing demands than a few kids who'd give their eye teeth to be full citizens.

 

I must say that mj's silence on a very extreme agenda, that would have no chance of getting enough votes to get through congress, is telling. Ron Paul and his Randian political misfits would use any and every trick in the book to use current law to expedite any of their policies, and just like the delegates they've overwhelmingly won in states where their share of the popular vote was minuscule, they'd justify it to themselves. That now really would make Obama look like he was born in the US.

 

I'm not altogether against how the Ron Paul army have twisted the system because the system twisted against them, but the hypocrisy here is striking, as indeed it is  when one looks at Bush, who deftly arranged the deck, with at least one dictator in the pack.


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/18/12 at 3:48pm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #34 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I must say that mj's silence on a very extreme agenda, that would have no chance of getting enough votes to get through congress, is telling.

 

What the **** are you talking about?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Ron Paul and his Randian political misfits would use any and every trick in the book to use current law to expedite any of their policies, and just like the delegates they've overwhelmingly won in states where their share of the popular vote was minuscule, they'd justify it to themselves. That now really would make Obama look like he was born in the US.

 

I'm not altogether against how the Ron Paul army have twisted the system because the system twisted against them, but the hypocrisy here is striking, as indeed it is  when one looks at Bush, who deftly arranged the deck, with at least one dictator in the pack.

 

Are you continuing to attempt to derail your own thread with this red herring?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

 

This might make for some excellent partisan Obama bashing, but it's well within the law, indeed the discretion of the implementation of these laws was passed by congress and written into the bill.

 

 

 

Obama is not altering the implementation of the law.  He's openly ignoring the law.  He's openly changing the law.  He did the same on DOMA. And he did this after announcing in November 2011 that he didn't have the authority to do it.  

 

 

Quote:

 

No president is going to excerpt his authority unduly, at least to the point where he/she could be impeached, but even on cases of murder and drug dealing the president can still alter who the law falls down on. On most matters the president will simply require the law be enacted as written, but, and especially here, there are more pressing demands than a few kids who'd give their eye teeth to be full citizens.

 

He has used his authority unduly.  He's not exercising prosecutorial discretion.   Prosecutorial discretion is what Eric Holder did with the Black Panthers voter intimidation case (where Holder acted wrongly, but not improperly in my opinion).  They decided not to prosecute based on the evidence.  What Obama is doing is implementing his own law, one that failed in Congress.  He's literally implementing a new law but laying out who will not be deported based on his judgment alone.  He's not merely saying "we're suspending the deportation of non-criminal minor aliens."  He's going much further with specific criteria that the Whitehouse openly admits resembles the DREAM Act closely.   

 

Face it, Hands.  You like the policy and don't give a shit how it gets done.  You don't care if Obama comes down from a mountain with fucking stone tablets.  You don't care if he wears a crown and a robe while he's announcing it.  You think it's the right thing, and like most Obama actions, the ends justify the means.  Admit it. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 68

He has power and backing behind him remember that Obama is a shrewd individual and knows what he is doing.
 

post #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

He has power and backing behind him remember that Obama is a shrewd individual and knows what he is doing.
 

Based on what evidence?

post #38 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Admit it. 

 

This blatant fear mongering and attacking the principles of your opponents has run it's course. It's another sad day for political discussion here, that your only agruments, like mj's, are all about making up bland motives that you want to believe and spout out to feel like you're morally superior. It's the same old, same old, right wing drivel and I don't want to waste any more of my time on it. Some of us aren't teenagers with axes to grind any more.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

This blatant fear mongering and attacking the principles of your opponents has run it's course. It's another sad day for political discussion here, that your only agruments, like mj's, are all about making up bland motives that you want to believe and spout out to feel like you're morally superior. It's the same old, same old, right wing drivel and I don't want to waste any more of my time on it. Some of us aren't teenagers with axes to grind any more.

 

Now this is downright hilarious.

 

Several people have clearly, respectfully and rationally explained that what Obama is doing appears to be both an arbitrary power play and probably unconstitutional and you simply dismiss this is as "blatant fear mongering" "drivel" from "teenagers with axes to grind" who are "making up bland motives" and "feeling morally superior."

 

Priceless.

 

Barack Obama's Executive Unilateralism

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #40 of 68

What if he were to choose to stop enforcing environmental laws? 'cause you know, coal plants cost a lot to replace and ... energy security depends on it ... and other stuff. What then?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüĆĶ Obama Ends The Tyranny Of Exclusion For Mexican Migrants Under Thirty.