View Poll Results: Is Obama breaking the law?

Voters
96. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, by his own words he is breaking the law

    45 46.88%
  • No, perfectly legal

    22 22.92%
  • Doing same as Regan and Bush did

    17 17.71%
  • Not sure

    3 3.13%
  • Dont care

    3 3.13%
  • Go Fish

    6 6.25%
Page 22 of 70 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 697

Thread: Obama's Executive Order[W:265]

  1. #211
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, they do not explicitly refer to work authorizations, but they remove the "unauthorized alien" status from the immigrant which is what prevents them from getting work authorization.

    8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(1) explicitly states that "An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive" is one of the "Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment."
    Ah, I missed (11) under (a)

  2. #212
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,618

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Personally...I felt this was all much ado about what turns out to be 'nothing'. The 'legality' hinges on one word...permanent. If Obama issued an EO granting anyone permanent status then yes...he is violating the Constitution and it should be overturned. Current immigration policy and law defines how that status is changed and obtained. EOs cannot overturn law. So...as long as Obama is saying that as long as he is president his justice department will seek to grant temporary legal working status to citizens so long as they pass a background check and they will NOT deport them, then thats probably fine. Illegal immigrants should understand...its not a promise of amnesty. Its not a permanent legal residency status, it doesnt impact all illegal immigrants, it doesnt pave the way for more to come here illegally, it doesnt make them citizens. The understanding though is that when the next president takes over, BO's XO, is GO ne.

    This is ALL about politics and posturing. It will be interesting to see how both parties play the cards Obama is dealing them. Republicans could screw this up royally, but then, so could the democrats.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    You got your "law" terms confused. Deportation is in no way a punishment.

    Border Patrol agents have the authority to turn back border crossers they encounter. Are BP agents judges that are authorized to adjudicate a sentence and deliver a judgement of deportation? Of course not.

    Immigration is Administrative law; not criminal law. There is a difference.
    Whatever semantics you wish to employ, the reality remains that the Obama administration has rounded up and deported quite a number of illegal aliens.

    If amnesty is what it is, then what is the it the illegal aliens would receive amnesty about.

    Their trespassing?

    Their identity forging?

    Their unlawful attainment of employment (facilitated by their accomplice U.S. bosses!)?

    Their violation of U.S. customs law?

    All their other associated frauds?

    Some of which are felonies?

    Yes .. all of these.

    And since Obama has continued the precedent of waving these criminals' obligation to pay restitution to the Americans from whom they stole, and waving these criminals' associated prison sentences followed by deportation when they're released ..

    .. And instead simply sentencing them to deportation ..

    .. What is the penalty, the obvious, punitive penalty to them, that amnesty is preventing the millions of illegal aliens Obama is pardoning in his speech from receiving?

    That's right: deportation.

    Obama can employ semantics sophistry and say, "no, it's not amnesty -- it's 'prosecutorial discretion'.

    But a spade's a spade -- everyone knows it's amnesty, and obviously so.

    If deportation is not a penalty, if it's not a punishment, then the government has no right to act in deportation, as there would be no grounds warranted for it, as forcing a person's body away from a demographic that person chose to be on for so many years is clearly punitive.

    Even in administrative law there are statutes that state punishments for failures, often in the form of a fee.

    Deportation is that punishment here.

    But, this is really not the point, is it.

    The point is that Obama's plan is amnesty for illegal aliens, which he simply cannot do by constitutional law without a pardon.

    A piece of crap by any other name would smell as foul.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  4. #214
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Hi Pete,

    That's actually not what he said.

    Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

    With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

    There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.“


    Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall | The White House

    In 2011 he said he didn't have the power to do this. In 2014 he said he had the power to do this. He didn't mention amnesty in 2011.

    What changed?
    He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

    Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite


  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    This falls along the same lines of "The government should get out of marriage". While it sounds like a good slogan, the reality is the government is never going to get out of marriage and you aren't going to ever see an electable candidate say "Get rid of the anchor baby amendment". It simply isn't going to happen.

    The better idea is to concentrate on securing the border. Without securing the border, any other policy is pretty much irrelevant short of increasing enforcement of laws.
    This isn't like the government licensed marriage where you can at least argue there is government granted benefits to it, but an irrational policy that leaves immigration law being impossible to enforce without splitting families.

    It might make people feel really good, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. I know people absolutely love the fourteenth amendment, but the fact of the matter is it does at least need to be replaced with an amendment that stops this idiocy.
    Last edited by Henrin; 11-21-14 at 12:27 PM.

  6. #216
    Educator Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    02-22-15 @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    677

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    This isn't like the government licensed marriage where you can at least argue there is government granted benefits to it, but an irrational policy that leaves immigration law being impossible to enforce without splitting families.
    benefits? like healthcare? Obama can't do that, but individual states like Ca. can do that for them. Don't think they won't.

  7. #217
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,833

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

    Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite
    In other words, he lied back then, right? I mean, do you think it's reasonable that he's able to understand the law now...but couldn't understand the law back then? Heck, it makes me wonder if he even understands the law now.

    But, hey...if he says it, it's true, right? Even if it's not.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    This isn't like the government licensed marriage where you can at least argue there is government granted benefits to it, but an irrational policy that leaves immigration law being impossible to enforce without splitting families.

    It might make people feel really good, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.
    I'm arguing that getting rid of the anchor baby amendment is not a popular view so it isn't going to happen. That is reality, that is why I compared it to "the government getting out of marriage".

    There isn't a popular view of getting rid of that amendment so those candidates aren't going to hold that view that go up for election. A more tangible solution is to secure the border and enforce the laws we have on the books now. Getting rid of the anchor baby amendment is a pipe dream.

  9. #219
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Meister View Post
    benefits? like healthcare? Obama can't do that, but individual states like Ca. can do that for them. Don't think they won't.
    And if they choose to do so, it's their option to do so.

    I thought the right was all about "states rights". I guess that gets thrown under the bus whenever they decide they don't like those states' rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Obama's Executive Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Meister View Post
    benefits? like healthcare? Obama can't do that, but individual states like Ca. can do that for them. Don't think they won't.
    They can add whatever they want to marriage benefits if they feel like doing it. It's not as if anything in the marriage arrangement is outside the governments purview.

Page 22 of 70 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •