• 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 to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,227
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action -- including suspending deportations for millions -- as early as next Friday, a source close to the White House told Fox News.

Critics in the Senate say those who receive deferred action, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, receive work authorization in the United States, Social Security numbers and government-issued IDs.

Another portion that is sure to cause consternation among anti-"amnesty" lawmakers is a plan to expand deferred action for young people. In June 2012, Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, entered before June 2007 and were under 31 as of June 2012. The change would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.

First, is this constitutional and legal to do this without Congressional involvement?

Second, what percentage of Americans actually want Obama to do this?

Third, what is the motivating factor behind doing this without any input from Congress?

And last, how is it that only Fox News was able to get these details? Lack of reporting skills, or an organized distraction from the mainstream media?
 
Nothing like working with the new house and senate.

Why not sit down and see which if any of these 10 points we can make a bill through the house and senate and he can sign it. You know...bipartisanship.
 
Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week | Fox News





First, is this constitutional and legal to do this without Congressional involvement?

I didn't see anything in the article that looked unconstitutional, but I am sure that the republicans who keep demanding border security will say it is unconstitutional for him to strengthen border security.
Second, what percentage of Americans actually want Obama to do this?

Do what? Not all 10 points were discussed and until we see the details, we may or may not support his plan.
Third, what is the motivating factor behind doing this without any input from Congress?

To get something done I suppose, not that motivation matters in this issue regarding the Constitionality of it.
And last, how is it that only Fox News was able to get these details? Lack of reporting skills, or an organized distraction from the mainstream media?

I have no idea whether or not Fox News is the only one who has it. It is possible that others have it and are doing background, shooting segments, researching the legality or whatever. Being the first does not mean that they are the exclusive knowers in these type situations.
 
I'd love for anyone to argue that these actions would not fit this description as it relates to the new Congress:

When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb

And if that is an accurate description then it would mean in terms of his ability to constitutionally take executive action:

then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the entire matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

The Constitutionality of such an action, once the new congress is in place, is questionable at best. However, most likely it would sustain challenge at the SCOTUS level given the expanding power of the Executive over the past decades.

However, the Presidents CONTINUAL unilateral action and substantial movement with executive orders and actions that oppose the will of the congress and operate in a nebulous region between upholding the law and simply ignoring it is beginning to make me reconsider my belief as to whether or not it would be rightful of this incoming Senate to build upon the precedence displayed by Harry Reids Senate and utilize various new rules and old actions in non-traditional ways...such as using reconcilliation on bills that aren't primarily tax code changes or budgets...to combat these type of actions.
 
The president's plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency. The source said the plan could be announced as early as Nov. 21, though the date might slip a few days pending final White House approval.

The source... a US government agency.. no way to check their source or verify the story other than to wait until the 21st. and see. Is this story real, or just more nonsense? Stay tuned, folks, we'll soon find out.
 
If this is true, and depending on how far it goes, it could well violate Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution.
 
I didn't see anything in the article that looked unconstitutional, but I am sure that the republicans who keep demanding border security will say it is unconstitutional for him to strengthen border security.


Do what? Not all 10 points were discussed and until we see the details, we may or may not support his plan.


To get something done I suppose, not that motivation matters in this issue regarding the Constitionality of it.


I have no idea whether or not Fox News is the only one who has it. It is possible that others have it and are doing background, shooting segments, researching the legality or whatever. Being the first does not mean that they are the exclusive knowers in these type situations.

The president can't modify the law via executive order. It's a facts that that's illegal.
 
The source... a US government agency.. no way to check their source or verify the story other than to wait until the 21st. and see. Is this story real, or just more nonsense? Stay tuned, folks, we'll soon find out.

I'll wait and see. I don't see what the big deal is, supposedly it's just a draft anyway.
 
The president can't modify the law via executive order. It's a facts that that's illegal.

I have seen nothing suggesting that he is modifying any laws, just directing that people prioritize their efforts in in a different way within existing laws.
 
I have seen nothing suggesting that he is modifying any laws, just directing that people prioritize their efforts in in a different way within existing laws.

Amnesty is either modifying the law, or refusing to enforce the law; both are illegal.
 
Amnesty is either modifying the law, or refusing to enforce the law; both are illegal.

Amnesty in the context of immigration has a specific meaning and you haven't even entered into the parking lot to the ballpark with that post. Deferred deportation isn't amnesty anyway, and the Greedy Ol Party won't shut the government down before Christmas to stop Obama. Your side is going to lose on this issue. Wait and see. While you are at it, go to your local magistrate and swear out a warrant against the President of the United States and see where it gets you.
 
Nothing like working with the new house and senate.

Why not sit down and see which if any of these 10 points we can make a bill through the house and senate and he can sign it. You know...bipartisanship.

To hell with bipartisanship. It does not mean the same to the left and the right. Bipartisanship to the left it: "They must come all the way to our way of thinking and we do not give an inch."
 
It'll probably be like all of those EO's he implemented after Sandy Hook.

Weak.

Watered Down.

Ineffective.

Should he do something illegal, I'm all for using methods available to curtail such action.
 
Nothing like working with the new house and senate.

Why not sit down and see which if any of these 10 points we can make a bill through the house and senate and he can sign it. You know...bipartisanship.

Maybe you should look at what the republicans want before you speak of bipartisanship.
 
Amnesty in the context of immigration has a specific meaning and you haven't even entered into the parking lot to the ballpark with that post. Deferred deportation isn't amnesty anyway, and the Greedy Ol Party won't shut the government down before Christmas to stop Obama. Your side is going to lose on this issue. Wait and see. While you are at it, go to your local magistrate and swear out a warrant against the President of the United States and see where it gets you.

Ameica is my side and if Obama commits this crime, my side will lose. You got that part right.
 
Quack, quack, quack.

Obama's done...and he probably knows it.
 
Lying and illegal actions are not elements that deter Obama, his party or the propagandists we refer to as the MSM.
 
He is still trying to fundamentally change America... By executive fiat if need be. So King Obama ain't done until his ass is removed from office.
 
Anybody know where a copy of this document can be found? It seems like an odd thing to miss in a story about... ya know... the document itself...
 
Amnesty is either modifying the law, or refusing to enforce the law; both are illegal.

Malfeasance as well. Criminal-level malfeasance.

It is one of the few, specifically enumerated duties of the federal government to defend the nation and its people against foreign invaders. To offer “amnesty” to invading criminals goes very much against this duty.

Any federal official who goes along with this ought to be criminally prosecuted both for malfeasance and treason.
 
Although comprehensive immigration reform is indeed needed, I don't think unilateral edicts issued by a lame-duck president is the proper way to go about it.
 
Maybe you should look at what the republicans want before you speak of bipartisanship.

Because the democrats have been really trying to work with the Republicans and vice versa. Give me a break. Neither party is willing to work with the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom