• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP sources: Immunity offered to certain immigrants

The power to execute the law is given to the president in the constitution, not to the Congress. Prosecutorial discretion is part of that power. That has been thoroughly established in the courts for many decades.

I think you just don't get the most basic elements of what is going on. ICE has finite resources. It has to choose where to spend them. Obviously it doesn't have enough resources to catch and deport every single undocumented immigrant, right? So it needs to prioritize. Rather than focusing resources on trying to catch folks who didn't even come here of their own volition and who aren't causing any trouble, ICE wants to focus on the highest priority targets. People that are committing other crimes are the top of the list, but people who came here of their own volition are also obviously higher priority than people who didn't, right?

The Executive branch is to implement and enforce the laws passed. When a President decides to NOT enforce a valid law passed by Congress, the President is in violation of his oath of office, and possibly the Constitution. Basically, he's not doing his job.
 
The Executive branch is to implement and enforce the laws passed. When a President decides to NOT enforce a valid law passed by Congress, the President is in violation of his oath of office, and possibly the Constitution. Basically, he's not doing his job.

The power to execute the law is given to the president in the constitution, not to the Congress. Prosecutorial discretion is part of that power. That has been thoroughly established in the courts for many decades.

I think you just don't get the most basic elements of what is going on. ICE has finite resources. It has to choose where to spend them. Obviously it doesn't have enough resources to catch and deport every single undocumented immigrant, right? So it needs to prioritize. Rather than focusing resources on trying to catch folks who didn't even come here of their own volition and who aren't causing any trouble, ICE wants to focus on the highest priority targets. People that are committing other crimes are the top of the list, but people who came here of their own volition are also obviously higher priority than people who didn't, right?
 
It is not so much an outrage of what he did, but in the manner in which he did it that is what is going to get him in hot water.

How so? Hot water with who? What do you mean by the manner in which he did it?
 
The power to execute the law is given to the president in the constitution, not to the Congress. Prosecutorial discretion is part of that power. That has been thoroughly established in the courts for many decades.

It's been established that the executive branch can ignore the congress whenever it so well chooses? Oh really? In what Nazi bizzaro world, exactly? Are you from the future? That sure sounds like the future under Adolf Obama, anyway.
 
It's been established that the executive branch can ignore the congress whenever it so well chooses?

No, of course not. It has been established that the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion.

Explain to me how you think it works. A law enforcement agency is given a budget of say $40 billion and it would cost $10 trillion to catch everybody violating a law it is charged with enforcing. Are you saying they should just blow the $40 billion on the first cases that happen to cross its path no matter how much it costs and then let everybody else go? Of course not. It needs to use its discretion to try to accomplish the most good with its finite resources. Right?
 
No, of course not. It has been established that the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion.

Explain to me how you think it works. A law enforcement agency is given a budget of say $40 billion and it would cost $10 trillion to catch everybody violating a law it is charged with enforcing. Are you saying they should just blow the $40 billion on the first cases that happen to cross its path no matter how much it costs and then let everybody else go? Of course not. It needs to use its discretion to try to accomplish the most good with its finite resources. Right?

Complete red herring. Deporting an illegal who happens to have graduated is no different, neither financially nor legally, than one who just swam across the rio grande.
 
Complete red herring. Deporting an illegal who happens to have graduated is no different, neither financially nor legally, than one who just swam across the rio grande.

Explain to me how you think it works. A law enforcement agency is given a budget of say $40 billion and it would cost $10 trillion to catch everybody violating a law it is charged with enforcing. Are you saying they should just blow the $40 billion on the first cases that happen to cross its path no matter how much it costs and then let everybody else go? Of course not. It needs to use its discretion to try to accomplish the most good with its finite resources. Right?
 
Your lord and savior Reagan did it. Conservatives really are hypocrites.

Most conservatives I know, admit it was a grave mistake. But I doubt you'll do the same in Obama's case.
 
It is not so much an outrage of what he did, but in the manner in which he did it that is what is going to get him in hot water.

j-mac

I am reminded of a political cartoon from several years ago. It showed a caricature of a radical terrorist, before and after some alleged anti-Islam policy passed several years ago. Anyway, the first panel's caption was "Before the policy." He was clearly pissed and was yelling, "Death to America!" The second panel was "After the policy." He looked exactly the same and was yelling, "Death to America!"

The Tea Party reminds me of that caricature. Obama could blink his eyes, and they'd hate him for that.

Furthermore, I think it's the Republicans who are scared here (as they almost always are). If the Latino vote swings the electoral vote in favor of Obama, then they know that they are going to have real trouble regaining America's vote over the next couple of decades.
 
The Executive branch is to implement and enforce the laws passed. When a President decides to NOT enforce a valid law passed by Congress, the President is in violation of his oath of office, and possibly the Constitution. Basically, he's not doing his job.

That's total BS.



What is Prosecutorial Discretion?▲

“Prosecutorial discretion” is the authority of an agency or officer to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue each case. A law-enforcement officer who declines to pursue a case against a person has favorably exercised prosecutorial discretion. The authority to exercise discretion in deciding when to prosecute and when not to prosecute based on a priority system has long been recognized as a critical part of U.S. law. The concept of prosecutorial discretion applies in civil, administrative, and criminal contexts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that “an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).​


Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law | Immigration Policy Center
 
I wonder why he did? Because rat bastard Democrats convinced him that if he did it, it would never be needed again. They told him the bill would include funding for the border, to prevent more from coming. And as usual, conservatives are stupid enough to believe the stupid excuses to compromise.

You are right though. Conservatives should stop compromising.

Conservatives... Compromise... I think my head might explode!
 
Thing is, soon as the election is over, these kids get thrown to the wolves if Obama wins. He's not going to fight the matter with the congress in the court, so he'll drop them like a hot potato. One of the most cynical and calculated election moves I seen. I'm so disgusted with our POTUS right now.

Me too, and yeah, they will be.
 
Thing is, soon as the election is over, these kids get thrown to the wolves if Obama wins. He's not going to fight the matter with the congress in the court, so he'll drop them like a hot potato. One of the most cynical and calculated election moves I seen. I'm so disgusted with our POTUS right now.

Me too, and yeah, they will be.

What happens is these kids, if they can prove that they are eligible, get a two-year reprieve (called "deferred action" by the Department of Homeland Security). I don't see them being "thrown to the wolves" immediately after the election, because no matter who wins in November, it's unlikely that they go back on this decision as it essentially becomes a case of double jeopardy.

I really don't see any evidence for your claim that these kids will be "thrown to the wolves," even if this IS a calculated political move - which by the way is a theory i'm a bit skeptical of, because even if this wins him more Hispanic/Latino votes, it likely alienates many independent and swing voters.
 
Last edited:
Good God man, have you no shame at all? What kind of debate do you really expect by opening up your posting with such a vile diatribe?

Let's review your post just a mere two pages prior to this post above.

j-mac said:
should Obama continue on the destroy America tour

j-mac said:
This doofus (Obama) has subverted the Constitution at every turn

j-mac said:
This current administration is not only the most arrogant in history, but IMHO, the most dangerous to our Constitution, and way of life.

And you are lecturing others on how to post in such a fashion that inspires debate... Hypocrisy much?
 
The power to execute the law is given to the president in the constitution, not to the Congress. Prosecutorial discretion is part of that power. That has been thoroughly established in the courts for many decades.

I think you just don't get the most basic elements of what is going on. ICE has finite resources. It has to choose where to spend them. Obviously it doesn't have enough resources to catch and deport every single undocumented immigrant, right? So it needs to prioritize. Rather than focusing resources on trying to catch folks who didn't even come here of their own volition and who aren't causing any trouble, ICE wants to focus on the highest priority targets. People that are committing other crimes are the top of the list, but people who came here of their own volition are also obviously higher priority than people who didn't, right?

and that is why this Administration should partner more with the States rather than fighting them on illegal immigration.
 
how would this law attract more illegals?
The same way Reagan Amnesty attracted more illegals.Because of the Reagan Amnesty we went from 3 million illegals to 12-20 million plus illegals in 26 years because all those illegals figured that scum in office would give them amnesty too.Why wouldn't a parents pack up all their kids and sneak across the border when pro-illegal scum are basically going to give their kids amnesty.

Right now they say 800,000 will be granted immunity/amnesty.Seeing how they lied about how many illegals will get amnesty the first time they are most likely lying again.

Amnesty won't work: Secure our borders | The American Legion
When President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens.


new illegals won't be covered by this new rule.
How do you prove how long someone is here illegally?After all pro-illegals love to call them undocumented. So are you supposed to prove how long someone has been here when they do not have any documentation? Do you honestly believe that out of the 12-20 million plus illegals in this country that only 800,000 of them will get immunity/amnesty?
 
Last edited:
It amazes me how pro-illegals try to push the idea that food prices will skyrocket if the farmers who have been hiring illegalls suddenly were forced to hire legal workers.

What do you think will happen when farmers are forced to actually pay min wage for workers? Do you think the farmers will just eat the additional cost or what? Of course food prices will go up.
 
I'm wondering why Romney still hasn't come out saying that he would reverse this decision.

He is waiting for poll results before he makes up his mind.
 
What do you think will happen when farmers are forced to actually pay min wage for workers? Do you think the farmers will just eat the additional cost or what? Of course food prices will go up.

Of course they will pass on the cost. Most articles say prices could go up about 3%. Not the big jump that some have claimed.
 
Explain to me how you think it works. A law enforcement agency is given a budget of say $40 billion and it would cost $10 trillion to catch everybody violating a law it is charged with enforcing. Are you saying they should just blow the $40 billion on the first cases that happen to cross its path no matter how much it costs and then let everybody else go? Of course not. It needs to use its discretion to try to accomplish the most good with its finite resources. Right?

How about partnering with State and local LE for enforcement of immigration laws. How about streamlining deportation to minimize court costs? How about instead of just letting illegal aliens stay, do something to reduce/stop the influx of illegal entery into the US.

You are correct that with a finite resources and funding choices have to be made. That happens all the time. Still does not make it right for those who break our immigration laws. Our system does need to be overhauled. We need a better migrant labor guest program. We need a swifter/more economical method to deport illegal aliens. Our legal system for handling many violations of law is way to costly.
 
It amazes me how pro-illegals try to push the idea that food prices will skyrocket if the farmers who have been hiring illegalls suddenly were forced to hire legal workers.

This thread is proof positive that Democrats will argue anything. (As I knew it would be.)

Are our immigration laws not enough? And our Constitution? Both of which are more friendly than the immigration laws of virtually any nation in the world already?

This is purely a political play.
 
What do you think will happen when farmers are forced to actually pay min wage for workers? Do you think the farmers will just eat the additional cost or what?

Employee costs are a small fraction of the overall cost of a product. Most farmers do not use illegals.



Of course food prices will go up.

Nowhere near as high as what the pro-illegals claim.
 
So it has nothing to do with stepped up enforcement and border security. That would indicate to me that there's no point in further boosting enforcement and border security, because those efforts have NO effect.

If Law Enforcement is on the Border, why would they run toward it? If they got caught in the U.S.even exiting they lose their ability to come back legally, do you think they're all stupid?
 
If Law Enforcement is on the Border, why would they run toward it? If they got caught in the U.S.even exiting they lose their ability to come back legally, do you think they're all stupid?

Erm ... What? I was talking about border patrol. You know, those folks who are tasked with preventing illegals from entering the country?
 
Back
Top Bottom