• 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!

Every Immigration-Related Executive Action Of The Last 58 Years

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Republicans have called President Obama’s executive actions on immigration illegal and imperial. Some have threatened to sue after Obama ordered work permits to be made available to nearly five million unauthorized immigrants. But Obama’s actions have plenty of precedent — it’s their scale that’s unusual.In anticipation of Obama’s announcement, the nonpartisanAmerican Immigration Council prepared a report detailing similar actions taken by presidents dating back to 1956. According to their count, there have been 39 comparable grants of temporary immigration relief in the past 58 years. They’ve been bipartisan too. Fifteen were enacted by Republican presidents, 20 by Democrats and four spanned the terms of presidents of both parties.
Data on the number of people affected isn’t available for some of the actions, and the best data for others is still rough (such as Reagan’s 1987 protection of some unauthorized children, for which the best estimate available is “100,000 families”), but there’s enough to give us a glimpse of just how sweeping this overhaul could be.
Click to expand...


Read more and list @: Every Immigration-Related Executive Action Of The Last 58 Years

Lets just be honest, what Barack Obama did is perfectly legal.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The thing is it has a LEGAL precedent.
Click to expand...

No, it just has precedent. An executive action that says we will enforce immigration laws for only whom we want to, and ignore the others, is a action of ignoring what that legislation really says. Obama's actions are not legal, just politically accepted precedent.
 
Um, no it isn't. The previous ones were all in response to an emercency of some kind, such as a natural disaster or war in country of origin. This is perfectly within the powere of the POTUS. Both of BO's biggies, this one and the pseudo-dream act, were not in response to any sort of crisis in the country of origin at all, rather effectively and in large swaths re-write immigration laws unilaterally.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Um, no it isn't. The previous ones were all in response to an emercency of some kind, such as a natural disaster or war in country of origin. This is perfectly within the powere of the POTUS. Both of BO's biggies, this one and the pseudo-dream act, were not in response to any sort of crisis in the country of origin at all, rather effectively and in large swaths re-write immigration laws unilaterally.
Click to expand...

What emergency, war, or natural disaster was this one in regards to:

1990 Bush Sr / deferred deportation of unauthorized spouses and children / 1.5 million ??

Just one of many.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Lets just be honest, what Barack Obama did is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen. Does it have some precedence? Yes.

However, just because something has some precedence, doesn't mean that it is legal. Also, just because something has some precedence doesn't mean it cannot be interpreted different later to be illegal.

What Obama has going for him is that I think the lawsuit is going to go nowhere and there will not be enough support in the senate to impeach him.

What Obama has going against him is this is an EO and if a GOP president comes into office they can easily get rid of that EO. Therefore I don't think this is going to bring anyone "out of the dark" in any meaningful way. All this EO really does is send a message "Come to the U.S. illegally, we won't deport you". It is also a slap in the face of EVERYONE who has come here legally and EVERYONE who is currently in process to become a LEGAL citizen of the U.S.
 
americanwoman said:
What emergency, war, or natural disaster was this one in regards to:

1990 Bush Sr / deferred deportation of unauthorized spouses and children / 1.5 million ??

Just one of many.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the sum of all the previous emergencies/wars/natural disasters.

However, that's fairly irrelevant since for all those previous EO, there was acquiesence. It's not a problem unless objected. It was wrong, of course, but there was little opposition so it slid. That is certainly not the case now.

I mean really, that's like saying that since the POTUS can suspend habeas corpus during times of national emergency, he has the authority to detain indefinitely whenever the mood strikes. That would be objected to, probably, unless it was very limited in scope such as gitmo detainees.
 
There are criteria for legally obtaing work permits, and one of them is to be legally in the country. BO may decide to continue not deporting them; it's gross dereliction of duty, but apparently not enforcing the law is not illegal. However, he can not just decide to re-write the laws and give work permits to ineligible people contrary to existing law. That's beyond not enforcing, that's the USFG actively rewarding criminals.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
There are criteria for legally obtaing work permits, and one of them is to be legally in the country. BO may decide to continue not deporting them; it's gross dereliction of duty, but apparently not enforcing the law is not illegal. However, he can not just decide to re-write the laws and give work permits to ineligible people contrary to existing law. That's beyond not enforcing, that's the USFG actively rewarding criminals.
Click to expand...

Legal residents of the USA will not have the option to expedite applications. So illegal activity is to be rewarded and the folks following the law are suckers.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
There are criteria for legally obtaing work permits, and one of them is to be legally in the country. BO may decide to continue not deporting them; it's gross dereliction of duty, but apparently not enforcing the law is not illegal. However, he can not just decide to re-write the laws and give work permits to ineligible people contrary to existing law. That's beyond not enforcing, that's the USFG actively rewarding criminals.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Nobody believes that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom