• 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 acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million

Deuce said:
He said it would be illegal to do exactly this? When?
Click to expand...

already covered.


From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is poised to ignore stark warnings that executive action on immigration would amount to “violating our laws” and would be “very difficult to defend legally.”

Those warnings came not from Republican lawmakers but from Mr. Obama himself.

For years, he has waved aside the demands of Latino activists and Democratic allies who begged him to act on his own, and he insisted publicly that a decision to shield millions of immigrants from deportation without an act of Congress would amount to nothing less than the dictates of a king, not a president...
Click to expand...

From the Washington Post:

...Question: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar through Univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”...

Obama: 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....
Click to expand...

From Factcheck.Org

...President Barack Obama tried to rewrite history by claiming that his position had not changed regarding legal authority for executive orders on immigration that he is now considering....

Maria Elena Salinas of Univision: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law...
Click to expand...


Obama: Halting Deportations "Not an Option" would be "Ignoring the Law"

...PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here's the problem that I have, Jose, and I've said this consistently, my job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said 'here is the law' when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do.

What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. We're not going to have them operate under a cloud, under a shadow. But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option..
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
You didn't give me your criteria.
Click to expand...

I provided you with information that corrects the NCL lie that Reagan and Bush acted unilaterally in regard to inmigration. Would you like to dispute it? Or, are you going to spin off in another direction and tell us how Bill Clinton didn't lie under oath?
 
Gaius46 said:
No one has gotten amnesty. We are simply choosing to not deport them today. That may seem like splitting hairs to you but it isn't. The next POTUS can start deporting people the day after he's sworn in.
Click to expand...

According to who? Obama? I'm thinking this may be another scenario where relies on the stupidity of his base. :lamo
 
cpwill said:
already covered.


From the NY Times:



From the Washington Post:



From Factcheck.Org




Obama: Halting Deportations "Not an Option" would be "Ignoring the Law"
Click to expand...

Greetings, cpwill. :2wave:

So what changed his thinking since 2011? Did he become King somewhere along the way? If so, I guess I missed it! :shock: I don't think he would be happy as King anyway - they have pesky Parliaments to deal with!
 
apdst said:
I provided you with information that corrects the NCL lie that Reagan and Bush acted unilaterally in regard to inmigration. Would you like to dispute it? Or, are you going to spin off in another direction and tell us how Bill Clinton didn't lie under oath?
Click to expand...

You didn't give me your criteria for when it's ok to change the law via executive order.
 
apdst said:
According to who? Obama? I'm thinking this may be another scenario where relies on the stupidity of his base. :lamo
Click to expand...

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

I'm waiting to see the long lines of illegals eager to come out of hiding to comply. If they have jobs, they are probably being paid under the table, and get to keep all the money they earn to spend as they please. Why would they want to change that and start paying taxes now? I seriously doubt they fear being deported at this time, so where's the incentive? They aren't American, so that means they aren't stupid, right? :doh:
 
Hatuey said:
EOs don't rewrite laws. Please stop the hyperbole. There's enough of it.
Click to expand...

Yet that is exactly what Obama did. interesting.
his job is to uphold existing law.

EO are to clarify any ambiguity in a law or to clear up any misconception in an existing law.
EO's cannot change law they cannot add to laws they cannot create new laws.

we already have an immigration law that is set and does not meet the criteria of an EO.
there is no ambiguity nor is there any misconception of how the law is to operate.

Obama just changed immigration law without congressional approval.

as for the lawsuits they are coming the states are already in the process or will sue in a few days.
 
gdgyva said:
just think about a couple of items....please

one....what do you tell the people that spent all the time and money and immigrated to this country legally over the last 15-20 years? too bad, so sad?

do they get a refund?

now...do you think other people NOT already here will have more of an impetus to come? if he is giving them amnesty, maybe i will get it someday?

how many of those people will be poor? most? what does that do to already strained local, and state economies?

immigration is great....my wife is now a citizen, but she emigrated here from Germany.....but it took time and money

Is the system broken? yeah maybe....so lets fix the LEGAL immigration system, and the visa situation......not open the doors and invite another 10, 15, 20 million people into a country that can barely feed and house the ones that are already here
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old, "legal immigrants had it very difficult, so let's make sure all immigrants have it just as bad" line. Fascinating to see that that is still a thing.
 
ludin said:
Yet that is exactly what Obama did. interesting.
his job is to uphold existing law.
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic statements and nothing more. :shrug:

[quite]EO are to clarify any ambiguity in a law or to clear up any misconception in an existing law.
EO's cannot change law they cannot add to laws they cannot create new laws.[/quote]

The fact that many EOs can be cited doing far more than that makes the above statement a half truth.

we already have an immigration law that is set and does not meet the criteria of an EO.
there is no ambiguity nor is there any misconception of how the law is to operate.
Click to expand...

More subjectivity? I'm shocked.

Obama just changed immigration law without congressional approval.
Click to expand...

And yet, all congress can do is defund his EO.

as for the lawsuits they are coming the states are already in the process or will sue in a few days.
Click to expand...

Lol... for what? What SCOTUS has stated is within his power to do? You're silly.
 
apdst said:
They were refugees. Illegal immigrants aren't refugees. If they were, they wouldn't be illegal immigrants. Do you know what refugee status is?
Click to expand...

Utter bull****. Both Reagan and Clinton made exceptions to the law based on nothing more than politics. Them being refugees makes not an ounce of difference.
 
apdst said:
I provided you with information that corrects the NCL lie that Reagan and Bush acted unilaterally in regard to inmigration. Would you like to dispute it? Or, are you going to spin off in another direction and tell us how Bill Clinton didn't lie under oath?
Click to expand...

El Wrongo!! Here's 3 EO actions that Ronald Reagan unilaterally took.

Signed: September 29, 1981 - Executive Order 12324 - Changes to the policy for interdiction of illegal aliens.

Signed: January 21, 1982 - Executive Order 12341 - Cuban and Haitian entrants.

Signed: February 2, 1987 - Executive Order 12582 - Naturalization requirements exceptions for aliens and non-citizen nationals of the United States who served in the Grenada campaign.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Well, I am no attorney, or law scholar for sure, but I think that there is a big difference between 200,000 sick or disabled people, and just waiving the pen in a constitutional temper tantrum.
Click to expand...

Not really. A supposed change in the law is not excused by people being sick as you claim. If Obama's EOs were illegal, so are the last 50 or so EOs doing the exact same thing.

Then lay it out...Originally you asked how it was illegal, and I provided a detailed article on exactly how, and you ignored it. Now you are moving to say it is what others did like Reagan, and I showed that was wrong as well...So, I guess now all you can do is attempt to dismiss it by laughing at it....eh :shrug: that too is a well worn tactic...Won't work...We shall wait and see.
Click to expand...

Conjecture and nothing more.

That's your opinion...We shall see.
Click to expand...

Want to place a bet? We can do this the gentlemanly way and go straight to the meat and potatoes. If I'm right about the general lack of knowledge Republicans have on this matter - remember: I'm basing my statements on those of Justice Kennedy - you can change your sig to something of my choosing. If you're right - and Obama is found to have overstepped his constitutional authority - I will change my sig. Deal?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, first being offensive while decrying partisanship is absurdly laughable. Second, What Reagan did with his EO, and Obama did are two totally different things, unless you want to say that both contain deception by democrats toward the American people.
Click to expand...

You do realize they both created exception to the law, right?
 
Hatuey said:
Hyperbolic statements and nothing more. :shrug:

EO are to clarify any ambiguity in a law or to clear up any misconception in an existing law.
EO's cannot change law they cannot add to laws they cannot create new laws.

The fact that many EOs can be cited doing far more than that makes the above statement a half truth.



More subjectivity? I'm shocked.



And yet, all congress can do is defund his EO.



Lol... for what? What SCOTUS has stated is within his power to do? You're silly.
Click to expand...

for not enforcing immigration laws and overstepping his authority. which he has said he doesn't have the power to do what he just did.
so the only one silly here are people defending a rogue president.

the president cannot re-write law and that is exactly what he did. only congress can edit and or add or re-write laws. EO cannot.
in the end it won't matter either the court system will stop him or congress won't fund him and the jester is meaningless since well he still won't get his way.

the president also can't issue green cards or work visas or anything else those are solely by the responsibility of congress.
the court has stopped him before on his power grabs and they will do so again.

states should have the lawsuit this week. so the only person looking silly will be the president again.
 
ludin said:
for not enforcing immigration laws
Click to expand...

He's not the first or last president who will do so.

and overstepping his authority. which he has said he doesn't have the power to do what he just did.
so the only one silly here are people defending a rogue president.

the president cannot re-write law and that is exactly what he did. only congress can edit and or add or re-write laws. EO cannot.
in the end it won't matter either the court system will stop him or congress won't fund him and the jester is meaningless since well he still won't get his way.

the president also can't issue green cards or work visas or anything else those are solely by the responsibility of congress.
the court has stopped him before on his power grabs and they will do so again.

states should have the lawsuit this week. so the only person looking silly will be the president again.
Click to expand...

tl/dr. Your claims are subjective. Whether you like it or not, Obama didn't rewrite laws. He took the same approach historically used by at least 5 different presidents and created an exception to them. The fact that none of those other have been attacked makes Congress' likeliness to do more than defund the EOs unlikely. :shrug:
 
danarhea said:
El Wrongo!! Here's 3 EO actions that Ronald Reagan unilaterally took.

Signed: September 29, 1981 - Executive Order 12324 - Changes to the policy for interdiction of illegal aliens.

Signed: January 21, 1982 - Executive Order 12341 - Cuban and Haitian entrants.

Signed: February 2, 1987 - Executive Order 12582 - Naturalization requirements exceptions for aliens and non-citizen nationals of the United States who served in the Grenada campaign.
Click to expand...

And in none of those cases did those orders effect millions of random illegal aliens. Therein lies the difference.
 
Hatuey said:
Utter bull****. Both Reagan and Clinton made exceptions to the law based on nothing more than politics. Them being refugees makes not an ounce of difference.
Click to expand...

Show us where they changed a law by use of executive order, or action. Be specific and tell us what law they changed.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

I'm waiting to see the long lines of illegals eager to come out of hiding to comply. If they have jobs, they are probably being paid under the table, and get to keep all the money they earn to spend as they please. Why would they want to change that and start paying taxes now? I seriously doubt they fear being deported at this time, so where's the incentive? They aren't American, so that means they aren't stupid, right? :doh:
Click to expand...

Illegals are going to flowing across the border like black birds.
 
Deuce said:
You didn't give me your criteria for when it's ok to change the law via executive order.
Click to expand...

And out of desperation, you keep asking the same stupid question.
 
Hatuey said:
He's not the first or last president who will do so.



tl/dr. Your claims are subjective. Whether you like it or not, Obama didn't rewrite laws. He took the same approach historically used by at least 5 different presidents and created an exception to them. The fact that none of those other have been attacked makes Congress' likeliness to do more than defund the EOs unlikely. :shrug:
Click to expand...

nope claims are backed by the constitution. you know that think that say there is a separation of powers and lists the presidential duties to uphold the law.
nope no other president has done what he has done you are wrong.

if they don't they will lose in the next election.
 
apdst said:
And in none of those cases did those orders effect millions of random illegal aliens. Therein lies the difference.
Click to expand...

I do believe they cleared up ambiguous wording in the original law of which there was question.

he obviously didn't read any of these orders lol that is what is so funny.
 
apdst said:
Show us where they changed a law by use of executive order, or action. Be specific and tell us what law they changed.
Click to expand...

Apdst, I'm not proving a law was changed because I've never even come close to claiming that. As a matter of fact, I've been arguing the exact opposite. This probably has to be the dumbest way for you to try and get someone else to prove your non-existent point. I've been arguing that A) Obama is well within historical precedent and B) no law was changed/rewritten or otherwise. Now, demanding information when your best response to what law Obama broke was "the constitution" is a bit ironic. Specially when you're so terribly dishonest you're actually trying to get others to prove what you've so far been unable to.
 
ludin said:
nope claims are backed by the constitution. you know that think that say there is a separation of powers and lists the presidential duties to uphold the law. nope no other president has done what he has done you are wrong. if they don't they will lose in the next election.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Justice Kennedy everyone:

Think Obama Is Behaving Like A Dictator On Immigration? SCOTUS Would Very Much Beg To Differ - Forbes

“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."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom