• 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!

Obama acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million

Henrin said:
So that is going to be Obama's out? That other people did it and got away with it? I guess he really is five years old.
Click to expand...

Alright, walk with me here. Congress has allowed this to happen for 50+ years and has never brought up a single legal challenge. Today, Obama decides he'll get a similar EO and Congress' response is that they will defund it. In short, Obama is doing what presidents have been doing and Congress is doing what it can do. Nothing at all has changed and to suggest otherwise is hyperbole. As I've stated, if there is anything illegal about it - I'll wait for the lawsuits.
 
American said:
No problem, I'm having a steak dinner tonight with a friend and won't give this **** a second thought.
Click to expand...

What's that saying? Dogs that bark, don't bite?
 
Hatuey said:
Alright, walk with me here. Congress has allowed this to happen for 50+ years and has never brought up a single legal challenge. Today, Obama decides he'll get a similar EO and Congress' response is that they will defund it. In short, Obama is doing what presidents have been doing and Congress is doing what it can do. Nothing at all has changed and to suggest otherwise is hyperbole. As I've stated, if there is anything illegal about it - I'll wait for the lawsuits.
Click to expand...

No, you need to walk with me. What they allowed in the past has nothing to do with what they will allow today. If I let my kid climb the counter today I have no obligation to let him climb the counter tomorrow. He better know this. It's against the rules for him to climb the counter today and it will be against the rules for him to climb the counter tomorrow. What I allow and what I don't doesn't change the rules.
 
Henrin said:
No, you need to walk with me. What they allowed in the past has nothing to do with what they will allow today.
Click to expand...

Lol. It has everything to do with it. You do realize that politics don't work in the vacuum you think they do?

If I let my kid climb the counter today I have no obligation to let him climb the counter tomorrow. He better know this. It's against the rules for him to climb the counter today and it will be against the rules for him to climb the counter tomorrow. What I allow and what I don't doesn't change the rules.
Click to expand...

That's right, simplify this to an anecdotal story. The president isn't Congress' kid and this is far more complex than climbing a counter. Moving on.
 
Hatuey said:
Has the EO stopped deportations? It hasn't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

"The centerpiece of the president’s announcement is a new program for unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of United States citizens. About four million people will be eligible for a new legal status that would defer their deportations and allow them to work legally. They must pass background checks and pay taxes, but they will receive Social Security cards, officials said.


To those people, Mr. Obama said, “You can come out of the shadows.”

An additional one million people will have some protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html?_r=0

Sounds like for those 5 million it has...
 
Hatuey said:
EOs don't rewrite laws. Please stop the hyperbole. There's enough of it.
Click to expand...

Most executive orders have full force and effect of law and many have been upheld by the courts when challenged. So you tell me how a President who throws out the existing law and states he will not enforce it and replaces it with his own dictates is not rewriting the law.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
The president isn't Congress' kid and this is far more complex than climbing a counter. Moving on.
Click to expand...

And the President isn't the Congresses daddy either...He doesn't get to say 'because you won't do what I want you to do, I will do it and dare you to then do something." That is completely backwards on how this country is supposed to work.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Most executive orders have full force and effect of law and many have been upheld by the courts when challenged. So you tell me how a President who throws out the existing law and states he will not enforce it and replaces it with his own dictates is no rewriting the law.
Click to expand...

He didn't throw out the law either. Please stop the hyperbole. Obama did what presidents have had the authority to do. Don't like it? Take it up with 50+ years of similar EOs.
 
j-mac said:
"The centerpiece of the president’s announcement is a new program for unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of United States citizens. About four million people will be eligible for a new legal status that would defer their deportations and allow them to work legally. They must pass background checks and pay taxes, but they will receive Social Security cards, officials said.


To those people, Mr. Obama said, “You can come out of the shadows.”

An additional one million people will have some protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html?_r=0

Sounds like for those 5 million it has...
Click to expand...

Precedent for the legality of that EO has been established by EOs of at least 5 different Republican Presidents.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol. It has everything to do with it. You do realize that politics don't work in the vacuum you think they do?



That's right, simplify this to an anecdotal story. The president isn't Congress' kid and this is far more complex than climbing a counter. Moving on.
Click to expand...

I'm making fun of the precedent argument of yours with the little story and even the example I used before that. It's just a stupid argument that basically says "I did it once, so I didn't break the rules". When the fact of the matter is the rules are still as they were in this situation as they were more than a 100 years ago. Allowing the little kiddies to break the rules doesn't change the rules. You're doing nothing but using the argument of a small child that broke the rules.
 
Henrin said:
I'm making fun of the precedent argument of yours with the little story and even the example I used before that.
Click to expand...

An example which is irrelevant to the point being made? Got it.

It's just a stupid argument that basically says "I did it once, so I didn't break the rules". When the fact of the matter is the rules are still as they were in this situation as they were more than a 100 years ago. Allowing the little kiddies to break the rules doesn't change the rules. You're doing nothing but using the argument of a small child that broke the rules.
Click to expand...

It's a stupid argument to argue that there is precedent for this (both recent and historical) and as such Congress will have a hard time arguing it is illegal. Got it. Do you know how this country works? :lol:
 
Hatuey said:
An example which is irrelevant to the point being made? Got it.



It's a stupid argument to argue that there is precedent for this (both recent and historical) and as such Congress will have a hard time arguing it is illegal. Got it. Do you know how this country works? :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, I know exactly how the courts work and they use the argument of a small child too. I don't care that you got away with breaking the rules in the past and neither does the rules.
 
Phys251 said:
Ultimately what this comes down to is the fact that Obama has slightly reduced the amount of power that white Americans hold over brown people. And that terrifies many of them. Rattles them to their core. The frothy, borderline-lunatic responses we have seen, including some right here on DP, are strong evidence of that.

But go ahead, conservative whites. Go ahead and see what your blatant racism does to the votes of the fastest growing minority in America. At the rate you're going, you'll be lucky to win Georgia's electoral votes by the year 2020.

Click to expand...



just think about a couple of items....please

one....what do you tell the people that spent all the time and money and immigrated to this country legally over the last 15-20 years? too bad, so sad?

do they get a refund?

now...do you think other people NOT already here will have more of an impetus to come? if he is giving them amnesty, maybe i will get it someday?

how many of those people will be poor? most? what does that do to already strained local, and state economies?

immigration is great....my wife is now a citizen, but she emigrated here from Germany.....but it took time and money

Is the system broken? yeah maybe....so lets fix the LEGAL immigration system, and the visa situation......not open the doors and invite another 10, 15, 20 million people into a country that can barely feed and house the ones that are already here
 
cpwill said:
That is false. Enforcement of the law is clearly laid out in the law, which is why Obama himself has said for years that taking the action that he did would be illegal.
Click to expand...

Using this logic, if a policeman didn't stop everyone breaking the speed limit he would be violating his oath. He has no right to allow 3 or 5 mph over the limit and only stop those excessive speeders.
 
Henrin said:
Actually, I know exactly how the courts work and they use the argument of a small child too.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you corner yourself into such arguments. Questioning why possession of child porn is illegal, arguing against the professional suspentions of child abusers, questioning why our system works the way it does. These things don't make you look like you have something relevant to add to the discussion. They simply make you look ignorant of how the world works.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't know why you corner yourself into such arguments. Questioning why possession of child porn is illegal, arguing against the professional suspentions of child abusers, questioning why our system works the way it does. These things don't make you look like you have something relevant to add to the discussion. They simply make you look ignorant of how the world works.
Click to expand...

Think about it for minute. The court is essentially one of the little kiddies that are to follow the rules, but what do we allow them to do? Well, we allow them to interpret the rules. So basically, the kids are telling the adults what the rules imposed on the kids say. It's pretty stupid really. Oh right, it's one set of kids that are interpreting rules imposed on all the other kids. That makes it better. :lol:

What makes it better is that these kids break the rules and use more or less the classic excuse of "I did it yesterday".
 
Hatuey said:
Precedent for the legality of that EO has been established by EOs of at least 5 different Republican Presidents.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion...We shall have to wait and see if that is indeed the case...I suspect no.
 
Henrin said:
Think about it for minute. The court is essentially one of the little kiddies that are to follow the rules, but what do we allow them to do? Well, we allow them to interpret the rules. So basically, the kids are telling the adults what the rules imposed on the kids say. It's pretty stupid really. Oh right, it's one set of kids that are interpreting rules imposed on all the other kids. That makes it better. :lol:

What makes it better is that these kids break the rules and use more or less the classic excuse of "I did it yesterday".
Click to expand...

And you have no idea how to resolve the issue, any more than you have any idea of how to run a nation without levying taxes.
 
j-mac said:
That's your opinion...We shall have to wait and see if that is indeed the case...I suspect no.
Click to expand...

So I take it you're declaring that deferring deportations is something new? Yes?
 
Hatuey said:
So I take it you're declaring that deferring deportations is something new? Yes?
Click to expand...

Not at all...Are you declaring that Obama is just doing exactly what Reagan did?
 
Hatuey said:
An example which is irrelevant to the point being made? Got it.



It's a stupid argument to argue that there is precedent for this (both recent and historical) and as such Congress will have a hard time arguing it is illegal. Got it. Do you know how this country works? :lol:
Click to expand...

It's a stupid argument to argue that precedence matters here. This is not the judicial branch where precedence matters where it comes to legality and constitutionality.
 
clownboy said:
It's a stupid argument to argue that precedence matters here. This is not the judicial branch where precedence matters where it comes to legality and constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Congress shall have no problem arguing it's illegal then won't they? Except...

Think Obama Is Behaving Like A Dictator On Immigration? SCOTUS Would Very Much Beg To Differ - Forbes

Justice Kennedy said:
“Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercise by immigration officials (emphasis added). Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.
Click to expand...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And you have no idea how to resolve the issue, any more than you have any idea of how to run a nation without levying taxes.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interesting in a solution to that problem, but you know I'm right. The system of checks and balances is laughably stupid. It is perhaps the dumbest idea the founders had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom