- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,114
- Reaction score
- 33,457
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Are you engaging in race baiting out of desperation? I'm shocked, I tells ya.:lol:
No, pointing out leftwing hypocrisy.
Are you engaging in race baiting out of desperation? I'm shocked, I tells ya.:lol:
So that is going to be Obama's out? That other people did it and got away with it? I guess he really is five years old.
No problem, I'm having a steak dinner tonight with a friend and won't give this **** a second thought.
Alright, walk with me here. Congress has allowed this to happen for 50+ years and has never brought up a single legal challenge. Today, Obama decides he'll get a similar EO and Congress' response is that they will defund it. In short, Obama is doing what presidents have been doing and Congress is doing what it can do. Nothing at all has changed and to suggest otherwise is hyperbole. As I've stated, if there is anything illegal about it - I'll wait for the lawsuits.
No, you need to walk with me. What they allowed in the past has nothing to do with what they will allow today.
If I let my kid climb the counter today I have no obligation to let him climb the counter tomorrow. He better know this. It's against the rules for him to climb the counter today and it will be against the rules for him to climb the counter tomorrow. What I allow and what I don't doesn't change the rules.
Has the EO stopped deportations? It hasn't. :shrug:
EOs don't rewrite laws. Please stop the hyperbole. There's enough of it.
The president isn't Congress' kid and this is far more complex than climbing a counter. Moving on.
Most executive orders have full force and effect of law and many have been upheld by the courts when challenged. So you tell me how a President who throws out the existing law and states he will not enforce it and replaces it with his own dictates is no rewriting the law.
"The centerpiece of the president’s announcement is a new program for unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of United States citizens. About four million people will be eligible for a new legal status that would defer their deportations and allow them to work legally. They must pass background checks and pay taxes, but they will receive Social Security cards, officials said.
To those people, Mr. Obama said, “You can come out of the shadows.”
An additional one million people will have some protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html?_r=0
Sounds like for those 5 million it has...
Lol. It has everything to do with it. You do realize that politics don't work in the vacuum you think they do?
That's right, simplify this to an anecdotal story. The president isn't Congress' kid and this is far more complex than climbing a counter. Moving on.
I'm making fun of the precedent argument of yours with the little story and even the example I used before that.
It's just a stupid argument that basically says "I did it once, so I didn't break the rules". When the fact of the matter is the rules are still as they were in this situation as they were more than a 100 years ago. Allowing the little kiddies to break the rules doesn't change the rules. You're doing nothing but using the argument of a small child that broke the rules.
An example which is irrelevant to the point being made? Got it.
It's a stupid argument to argue that there is precedent for this (both recent and historical) and as such Congress will have a hard time arguing it is illegal. Got it. Do you know how this country works? :lol:
Ultimately what this comes down to is the fact that Obama has slightly reduced the amount of power that white Americans hold over brown people. And that terrifies many of them. Rattles them to their core. The frothy, borderline-lunatic responses we have seen, including some right here on DP, are strong evidence of that.
But go ahead, conservative whites. Go ahead and see what your blatant racism does to the votes of the fastest growing minority in America. At the rate you're going, you'll be lucky to win Georgia's electoral votes by the year 2020.
That is false. Enforcement of the law is clearly laid out in the law, which is why Obama himself has said for years that taking the action that he did would be illegal.
Actually, I know exactly how the courts work and they use the argument of a small child too.
I don't know why you corner yourself into such arguments. Questioning why possession of child porn is illegal, arguing against the professional suspentions of child abusers, questioning why our system works the way it does. These things don't make you look like you have something relevant to add to the discussion. They simply make you look ignorant of how the world works.
Yup. Given that it will be unreformed entitlements that cause it to become so.
Precedent for the legality of that EO has been established by EOs of at least 5 different Republican Presidents.
Think about it for minute. The court is essentially one of the little kiddies that are to follow the rules, but what do we allow them to do? Well, we allow them to interpret the rules. So basically, the kids are telling the adults what the rules imposed on the kids say. It's pretty stupid really. Oh right, it's one set of kids that are interpreting rules imposed on all the other kids. That makes it better. :lol:
What makes it better is that these kids break the rules and use more or less the classic excuse of "I did it yesterday".
That's your opinion...We shall have to wait and see if that is indeed the case...I suspect no.
So I take it you're declaring that deferring deportations is something new? Yes?
An example which is irrelevant to the point being made? Got it.
It's a stupid argument to argue that there is precedent for this (both recent and historical) and as such Congress will have a hard time arguing it is illegal. Got it. Do you know how this country works? :lol:
It's a stupid argument to argue that precedence matters here. This is not the judicial branch where precedence matters where it comes to legality and constitutionality.
Justice Kennedy said:“Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercise by immigration officials (emphasis added). Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.
And you have no idea how to resolve the issue, any more than you have any idea of how to run a nation without levying taxes.