The Immigration laws are NOT being ignored, the policy is meant to deport the most violent case first, but it doesn't let anyone off the hook, Listen to the lady from CAP, she's correct.
Originally Posted by Grim17
Yeah, so what? It's only one small portion of the Dream Act, it's not amnesty - it's Prosecutorial Discretion.
2. This policy was ripped right from the pages of the dream act and just like many are saying, it's in effect, back-door amnesty. The word "amnesty" means "a general pardon, esp for offenses against a government"
, and "pardon" means to "release (a person) from liability for an offense."
That is precisely what the new policy does Pete.
Prosecutorial Discretion Is Well-Established In U.S. Law
Supreme Court: "An Agency's Decision Not To Prosecute Or Enforce ... Is A Decision Generally Committed To An Agency's Absolute Discretion." From the Supreme Court's decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney, written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist:
Justice Scalia: "Prosecutorial Discretion" Is "A Special Province Of The Executive." From Justice Antonin Scalia's majority decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:
This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years 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. See United States v. Batchelder
, 442 U. S. 114, 442 U. S. 123-124 (1979); United States v. Nixon
, 418 U. S. 683, 418 U. S. 693 (1974);Vaca v. Sipes
, 386 U. S. 171, 386 U. S. 182 (1967); Confiscation Cases
, 7 Wall. 454 (1869). This recognition of the existence of discretion is attributable in no small part to the general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement.
The reasons for this general unsuitability are many. First, an agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise. Thus, the agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency's overall policies, and, indeed, whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action at all. An agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing. The agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities. [Heckler v. Chaney
Even in the criminal-law field, a selective prosecution claim is a rara avis. Because such claims invade a special province of the Executive -- its prosecutorial discretion -- we have emphasized that the standard for proving them is particularly demanding, requiring a criminal defendant to introduce "clear evidence" displacing the presumption that a prosecutor has acted lawfully. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 - 465 (1996). We have said:
"This broad discretion [afforded the Executive] rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. Judicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor's motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry, and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government's enforcement policy. All of these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute." Wayte v. United States
, 470 U.S. 598, 607-608 (1985). [Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
I've watch the video several times and the FNC hoodwinked you hook line and sinker. See above. If you were totally honest and evaluated it objectively (without partisan influence) I'm sure you would come to a different conclusion. But I know you will not do this. For the reasons above is why this wasn't covered on the nightly newscast of ABC, CBS and NBC. Only on the propaganda channel - Fox News Channel.
4. How so Pete? I think you had better watch that report from Fox News again, because there was nothing misleading about it. They accurately laid out the facts surrounding the new policy and gave ample time to people on both sides of the issue to voice their opinion of it.