• 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

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.

Exactly.
 
Quack, quack, quack.

Obama's done...and he probably knows it.

And so he is going to use every means possible to destroy America before he leaves office.
 
And so he is going to use every means possible to destroy America before he leaves office.

Come on now.

I think he is a lousy POTUS, but I do not for one millisecond he wants to 'destroy' America. And please save any conspiracy theories about such things...there is almost ZERO chance you will change my mind.

He will do what most POTUS's do during the last two years of their final term...make themselves look good for the history books.

And btw, I think he and GW Bush were/are absolutely terrible at their jobs and both left (will leave) America far, FAR worse then when they took office. And my guess is that the next one (no matter who he/she is) will do likewise.

Anyone that thinks the two major parties are fundamentally different is, imo, staggeringly naive.
 
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.

You'd think that would be the normal order of business, work it out, compromise, get on with the people's business.

Seems that Obama is incapable of performing in this aspect of his elected office. I guess he just don't roll that way.

But then, how often does a community organizer have to compromise? Especially when he believes he's got the upper hand?

I'll wait and see. I don't see what the big deal is, supposedly it's just a draft anyway.

That's a good point. Why pull your weapon out and actually be forced to use it, when the mere threat of it is sufficient?

Maybe you should look at what the republicans want before you speak of bipartisanship.

Republicans first? For bipartisanship?
B1zsZXOIAAE-tVb.jpg

Look at all the Republican bipartisanship from the house. Nuff' said.

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.

Except the illustration above proves you wrong.
 
Maybe you should look at what the republicans want before you speak of bipartisanship.

How about if we get a president who is not a tyrant.
 
Obama and the Democrats should be very careful and think this unprecedented executive power grab through to its conclusion. Executive orders can be reversed and/or revised as soon as a new President takes office. This means that in 2016, if a Republican takes the office, he can choose how/whether to enforce the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), Endangered Species Act, Civil Rights Act, and can dissolve and abolish the EPA.

I think these are the types of threats Republicans should be making in response to these executive overreaches. Threats of impeachment or government shutdown are exactly what Obama is trying to provoke. He has already admitted that it would be unconstitutional for him to make executive orders like this but he’s going to do it for political reasons.

Let him do it. Make sure the American people understand what the new rules are and then use those new rules, in conjunction with your own new power grabs, to thoroughly gut the left’s agenda and pet projects. What a wonderful new recipe for governance here in America.
 
Obama and the Democrats should be very careful and think this unprecedented executive power grab through to its conclusion. Executive orders can be reversed and/or revised as soon as a new President takes office. This means that in 2016, if a Republican takes the office, he can choose how/whether to enforce the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), Endangered Species Act, Civil Rights Act, and can dissolve and abolish the EPA.

I think these are the types of threats Republicans should be making in response to these executive overreaches. Threats of impeachment or government shutdown are exactly what Obama is trying to provoke. He has already admitted that it would be unconstitutional for him to make executive orders like this but he’s going to do it for political reasons.

Let him do it. Make sure the American people understand what the new rules are and then use those new rules, in conjunction with your own new power grabs, to thoroughly gut the left’s agenda and pet projects. What a wonderful new recipe for governance here in America.

Is that the Republican platform, then, to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, and dissolve and abolish the EPA?
 
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?

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?



highfive.gif


http://www.debatepolitics.com/immig...0-point-immigration-plan-via-exec-action.html
 
Is that the Republican platform, then, to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, and dissolve and abolish the EPA?
Don’t be silly. If you like your health care plan you can keep it.
 
Don't ask me. Ask the King of the United States. This is the system you prefer right?

The king mentioned above, the one who wants to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, and dissolve and abolish the EPA, hasn't yet been elected.

If, that is, that is an accurate reflection of the Republican platform.
 
The king mentioned above, the one who wants to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, and dissolve and abolish the EPA, hasn't yet been elected.

If, that is, that is an accurate reflection of the Republican platform.

The king has already been elected and is already in office. You are defending the subversion of the US Constitution and our Federal laws based upon the popularity of specific issues. The issues are irrelevant. It could be a massive enforcement of federal marijuana laws or picking and choosing who the IRS will dedicate resources to collect taxes from.

You’re losing your country and your freedoms to the political fad of the day and dishonest politicians who hunger for more power over every aspect of your life. I guess you’re ok with this as long as the issue is one you support?
 
The king has already been elected and is already in office. You are defending the subversion of the US Constitution and our Federal laws based upon the popularity of specific issues. The issues are irrelevant. It could be a massive enforcement of federal marijuana laws or picking and choosing who the IRS will dedicate resources to collect taxes from.

You’re losing your country and your freedoms to the political fad of the day and dishonest politicians who hunger for more power over every aspect of your life. I guess you’re ok with this as long as the issue is one you support?

I am not defending anything, certainly not the idea of revising immigration by executive fiat.

I am questioning whether the agenda of the Republican Party really is to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, and dissolve and abolish the EPA.
 
I am not defending anything, certainly not the idea of revising immigration by executive fiat.

I am questioning whether the agenda of the Republican Party really is to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, and dissolve and abolish the EPA.
I see. Let me know what the answer is when you find out. In the mean time I’ll continue to remain on topic and denounce this as another unconstitutional executive power grab.
 
I see. Let me know what the answer is when you find out. In the mean time I’ll continue to remain on topic and denounce this as another unconstitutional executive power grab.

You're the one who posted

if a Republican takes the office, he can choose how/whether to enforce the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), Endangered Species Act, Civil Rights Act, and can dissolve and abolish the EPA.

but, if you want to get back on the subject of the thread, then sure, let's.

I just couldn't help but wonder how one unconstitutional power grab could be justified by another, and whether the above was really what the Republican Party stands for.
 
You're the one who posted



but, if you want to get back on the subject of the thread, then sure, let's.

I just couldn't help but wonder how one unconstitutional power grab could be justified by another, and whether the above was really what the Republican Party stands for.
One constitutional power grab doesn’t justify another but it historically leads to such. Eventually, if we maintain our present course, pontifications such as this won’t be absurd, they’ll be the order of the day. The bigger point is that every American should be opposed to such executive action, regardless of the underlying issue, because our government is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship and it isn’t one political party or the other that winds up being the loser in this case, it’s the American people who are losing their liberties and control over government.
 
I'd love for anyone to argue that these actions would not fit this description as it relates to the new Congress:



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



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 courts have held that the laws congress have actually passed are a far better indicator of the "will of congress" than anything some bloviating politician has said on the campaign trail or in front of a TV camera.

These changes in policy are basically an epansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program which is consistent with the laws congress has passed which allow the president a great deal of prosecutorial discretion

Here is some link to the announcement of the program. Please note that cliking on the link will cause a PDF to be downloaded onto your computer
http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=760

http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=761

Here is a link to an explanation of the legal justification of these policies
http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=754

3 General authority for defered action exists under
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 103(a), 8 U.S.C. § 103(a)
, which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to enforce the immigration laws. Though no statutes or regulations delineate defered action in specific terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that decisions to initate or terminate enforcement proceedings fall squarely within the authority of the Executive.4 In the immigration context, the Executive Branch has exercised its general enforcement authority to grant defered action since at least 1971. Federal courts have acknowledged the existence of this executive power at least as far back as the mid–1970s.5 More recently, this Administration granted defered action in June 20 to widows and children of U.S. citzens while legislation to grant them statutory relief was under consideration.6

Parole–in–place refers to a form of parole granted by the Executive Branch under
the authority of INA § 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 182(d)(5)
. Under this provision, the Atorney
General “may . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such
conditons as he may prescribe only on a case–by–case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit any alien aplying for admision to the United
States.”7 Parole permits a noncitzen to remain lawfuly in the United States, although
parole does not constiute an “admision” under the INA. Individuals who have ben
paroled are eligible for work authorization.8

Defered enforced departure, often refered to as DED, is a form of prosecutorial
discretion that is closely related to defered action. Almost every Administration since
President Dwight D. Eisenhower has granted DED or the analogous “Extended Voluntary
Departure” to at least one group of noncitzens.15 As with defered action, executive
authority to grant defered enforced departure and extended voluntary departure exists
under the general authority to enforce the immigration laws as set out in INA § 103(a), 8
U.S.C. § 103(a).16
Though Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in INA § 24, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254a, has largely superseded the use of DED in practice, DHS’s statutory authority for
granting DED on bases other than nationality remains intact, and the President retains his
inherent authority with respect to DED

IOW, Congress has granted POTUS the authority to do this and has not rescinded it. The wounded cries right wing politicians make for the cameras and news reporters do not take precedence over the law Congress has passed and SCOTUS has reviewed
 
Last edited:
One constitutional power grab doesn’t justify another but it historically leads to such. Eventually, if we maintain our present course, pontifications such as this won’t be absurd, they’ll be the order of the day. The bigger point is that every American should be opposed to such executive action, regardless of the underlying issue, because our government is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship and it isn’t one political party or the other that winds up being the loser in this case, it’s the American people who are losing their liberties and control over government.

On that, we agree. It remains to be seen whether Obama is really going to do what they say he will, but if he does, it will be a dangerous precedent.
 
On that, we agree. It remains to be seen whether Obama is really going to do what they say he will, but if he does, it will be a dangerous precedent.

No, it won't be any sort of precedent. The powers he will be exercising are powers with precedents that date back to the Eisenhower administration (see post #45)
 
Back
Top Bottom