Yes, by his own words he is breaking the law
No, perfectly legal
Doing same as Regan and Bush did
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.
If amnesty is what it is, then what is the it the illegal aliens would receive amnesty about.
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.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
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 11:27 AM.
But, hey...if he says it, it's true, right? Even if it's not.
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada firstname.lastname@example.org
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.