• 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

sangha said:
WTF does that mean? What "money world" are you talking about?



And again, your only complaint is that it's a big bill.

It's their job to understand legislation, even if it's complex. They should do their job without childish excuses.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I meant money WORD not world. And I didn't say anything at all about them not understanding the legislation. That's Pelosi's job to pass legislation without knowing what's in it. I think they DID understand the legislation well enough to know the pitfalls that were in it. But I don't think I'll ever get you to refer to what I actually said rather than what you seem to want me to have said, so have a good evening and a Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow.
 
sangha said:
Ahh, I see. As far as the leaders of one house of congress reaching out to the leader of the other house, I can't say but I doubt that there was any formal talks. However, I'm sure they talk from time to time and they have an idea of where the other leader (and his constituent members of Congress) stand on the issue.

IOW, you do make a good point. The real holdup is not Reid or Boehner; It's how obstinantly opposed both parties are to the others idea of reform.
Click to expand...
My other points are:(1)if both houses of congress are determined to pass Immigration Reform, there would be some communication - some negotiations, at least, of compromise because, according to the Constitution, one immigration bill must pass both houses and the bills are so diverse. (2)This negotiation process would, most likely, be long and drawn out as either house attempts to have its favorite form of immigration passed. (3) But, there have been no negotiations between houses and this has frustrated a gung ho BO so he established an executive action on Immigration Reform. (4)That's not, according to The Constitution, the role of presidents in the making of laws. A president's role in the making of laws is either yes I like a potential law drawn up by congress or no I don't. At best according to precedent, the president may clarify a law drwan up by congress... not write it. (5)Unless you consider BO's executive action on immigration a new precedent where the president may write law. (6)So, we'll have government workers from every branch of government voicing their favorites for Immigration Reform. Believe me, the judiciary will be asked to weigh in on this matter sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
That was different. Reagan was a Republican.
Click to expand...

Fenton said:
No its different because Obama completely by-passed Congress.
Click to expand...

It does not matter the name of the president, or his/her party, Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them. Plan and simple. The US Constitution is a beautiful thing, it is not meant to be bastardized by ANY president. It is ridiculous when justification is made by a President because another President did it, or justification is made because he/she worked with Congress. If the law needed to be changed or updated, or it a law needs to be made, it should be done by Congress.
 
ludin said:
then what he isn't doing is legal it is his job to enforce the law whether he likes it or not. he is changing immigration on who can be deported when the law says that these people have to be deported. he is doing it without congressional approval which is a violation of the constitution since the president doesn't have the power to change law.

An EO is only to be used to clarify an existing law where there is ambiguity and or something that needs to be explained.
the current immigration law does not have this therefore he changed the law itself.

he cannot hand out work visa's or anything else that is the realm of the congress to do not Obama.
Click to expand...

I believe you're incorrect as to what an EO is. An EO as I understand is a directive from the president to agencies that report to him on what he wants them to do. It is roughly equivalent to an order from a boss to an underling. Roughly because EOs carry the force of law.

I've pointed out before that presidents historically have significant leeway in deciding what laws to enforce. It's always been that way because they don't have unlimited manpower and money to enforce every law law on the books. Police departments have the same leeway. So do mayors, governors and prosecutors. That's reality.

Additionally congress gave the president, though his attorney general legal authority to give illegal immigrants work visas - I've quoted the relevant statute somewhere in this thread. Not only does that give the president the legal authority to do what he's doing it's an obvious admission on Congress' part that the President doesn't necessarily have to deport everyone who's here illegally.
 
Gaius46 said:
I believe you're incorrect as to what an EO is. An EO as I understand is a directive from the president to agencies that report to him on what he wants them to do. It is roughly equivalent to an order from a boss to an underling. Roughly because EOs carry the force of law.
Click to expand...

No I am right. an EO is nothing more than a memo to explain or to clarify existing law. What Obama did was change an existing law with his EO which makes it unconstitutional.
There is no confusion or ambiguity about our current immigration law. it is pretty clear that people who do not have proper documentation to be here need to be deported.

I've pointed out before that presidents historically have significant leeway in deciding what laws to enforce. It's always been that way because they don't have unlimited manpower and money to enforce every law law on the books. Police departments have the same leeway. So do mayors, governors and prosecutors. That's reality.
Click to expand...

there is a difference here if you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you. while enforcement of the law might not been fully engaged it was still being enforced.

Additionally congress gave the president, though his attorney general legal authority to give illegal immigrants work visas - I've quoted the relevant statute somewhere in this thread. Not only does that give the president the legal authority to do what he's doing it's an obvious admission on Congress' part that the President doesn't necessarily have to deport everyone who's here illegally.
Click to expand...

the AG is not congress and congress is the only body that can approve work visas or the number of visas. the president doesn't have the power on his own to expand the program.
which is why he isn't going to be able to do what he wants because the house republicans are simply not going to allow him to do it.

according to the law yes he does. he has no choice unless he can get congress to change the law. he doesn't have the authority (by Obama's own words) to do what he did.

which is why states and others already have lawsuits in the pipeline.
 
ludin said:
No I am right. an EO is nothing more than a memo to explain or to clarify existing law. What Obama did was change an existing law with his EO which makes it unconstitutional.
There is no confusion or ambiguity about our current immigration law. it is pretty clear that people who do not have proper documentation to be here need to be deported.



there is a difference here if you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you. while enforcement of the law might not been fully engaged it was still being enforced.



the AG is not congress and congress is the only body that can approve work visas or the number of visas. the president doesn't have the power on his own to expand the program.
which is why he isn't going to be able to do what he wants because the house republicans are simply not going to allow him to do it.

according to the law yes he does. he has no choice unless he can get congress to change the law. he doesn't have the authority (by Obama's own words) to do what he did.

which is why states and others already have lawsuits in the pipeline.
Click to expand...


These people disagree

What is a presidential executive order?
An executive order is a directive by the President of the United States that has the power of a federal law. Presidents might issue executive orders to create committees or organizations like the Peace Corps. In general, though, Presidents use executive orders to direct and manage how the federal government operates.
Click to expand...

Source USA.gov.


Congress specifically delegated to the AG the ability to make exceptions for illegals as he sees fit. congress delegating it's nominal responsibilities to executive agencies is commonplace. It happens all the time.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Sorry. I meant money WORD not world. And I didn't say anything at all about them not understanding the legislation. That's Pelosi's job to pass legislation without knowing what's in it. I think they DID understand the legislation well enough to know the pitfalls that were in it. But I don't think I'll ever get you to refer to what I actually said rather than what you seem to want me to have said, so have a good evening and a Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the immigration bill is like ACA? Something that reforms the immigration system is like something that reforms a completely different system? That's screwy

Again, the only thing you mention that they have in common is that they're both long bills.
 
apdst said:
Obama admits to changing the law. This is an admission of guilt.

Obama Puzzled by Pro-Amnesty Hecklers: 'I Just Took an Action to Change the Law!'
Click to expand...

Interesting that this Freudian slip happened. I wonder if that's going gain any traction of significance, or change the situation much. Also interesting that a constitutional professor, such as Obama claims to be, would make such a statement in the face of the contortion of the prosecutorial discretion aspect of his immigration policy action.
 
cabse5 said:
My other points are:(1)if both houses of congress are determined to pass Immigration Reform, there would be some communication - some negotiations, at least, of compromise because, according to the Constitution, one immigration bill must pass both houses and the bills are so diverse. (2)This negotiation process would, most likely, be long and drawn out as either house attempts to have its favorite form of immigration passed. (3) But, there have been no negotiations between houses and this has frustrated a gung ho BO so he established an executive action on Immigration Reform. (4)That's not, according to The Constitution, the role of presidents in the making of laws. A president's role in the making of laws is either yes I like a potential law drawn up by congress or no I don't. At best according to precedent, the president may clarify a law drwan up by congress... not write it. (5)Unless you consider BO's executive action on immigration a new precedent where the president may write law. (6)So, we'll have government workers from every branch of government voicing their favorites for Immigration Reform. Believe me, the judiciary will be asked to weigh in on this matter sooner or later.
Click to expand...

1) The issue isn't so much between the two houses of congress as it is between the right and everyone else. The right adamantly refuses to pass a bill that includes a "path to citizenship" (aka "amnesty") even though a majority of americans (and a number of republicans in congress) support one. The House (dominated by the right) won't consider a bill that includes one and the Senate (dominated by moderates and liberals) won't consider a bill that does not include one.

2 & 3) Because of the intractable nature of this conflict, neither side sees any point in negotiations.

4, 5, & 6) There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama's actions. The immigration laws on the books, passed by Congress, grant various Federal officers (President, AG, Sec'y of DHS) the authority to do the things they have done.

No laws are being written by Obama. Laws are being followed and adhered to.


http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=754

General authority for defered action exists under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 103(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a), which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to enforce the immigration laws. Though no statutes oregulations delineate defered action in specific terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that decisions to initate or terminate enforcement procedings fall squarely within the authority of the Executive. 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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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. § 1103(a).1
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
So you're saying the immigration bill is like ACA? Something that reforms the immigration system is like something that reforms a completely different system? That's screwy

Again, the only thing you mention that they have in common is that they're both long bills.
Click to expand...

As I said, we are not communicating and you don't seem to be able to honestly report what I have posted. I'm pretty sure others are able to read and understand what I said, but it's no big deal. Again I'll wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.
 
eohrnberger said:
Interesting that this Freudian slip happened. I wonder if that's going gain any traction of significance, or change the situation much. Also interesting that a constitutional professor, such as Obama claims to be, would make such a statement in the face of the contortion of the prosecutorial discretion aspect of his immigration policy action.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a slip-of-the-lip. He meant to say it and is daring someone to do something about it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As I said, we are not communicating and you don't seem to be able to honestly report what I have posted. I'm pretty sure others are able to read and understand what I said, but it's no big deal. Again I'll wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours from my house!
 
sangha said:
The senate *did* present a comprehensive immigration reform bill and it passed on a bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the House has refused to take action. Boehner declared it dead on arrival.
Click to expand...

Mornin' Sangha....Tell me, does the immigration bill that the Senate passed include spending of any kind?
 
AlbqOwl said:
As I said, we are not communicating and you don't seem to be able to honestly report what I have posted. I'm pretty sure others are able to read and understand what I said, but it's no big deal. Again I'll wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

I read what you said. The only similarity you mention is the size of the bill.

Enjoy your celebration
 
sangha said:
Yes it does. So does the House's various immigration bills.
Click to expand...

Well, then the Constitution seems pretty clear to me....Article 1 Section 7

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

So, this to me is just more backwards legislating....Because demo's don't like that Repubs controlled the house, doesn't mean that they can just throw the process out the window...
 
j-mac said:
Well, then the Constitution seems pretty clear to me....Article 1 Section 7

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

So, this to me is just more backwards legislating....Because demo's don't like that Repubs controlled the house, doesn't mean that they can just throw the process out the window...
Click to expand...

The House is free to take the Senate bill and use it as a basis for their own bill including whatever changes they like in their new bill. Then they can send that to the Senate

Besides, Article 1 Section 7 applies to bills that raise revenue, not bills that spend it

The contentious issue isn't origination. It's the fact that the right refuses to consider any reform bill that contains a "path to citizenship" (even though the majority of americans want one) and the moderates and liberals refuse to consider a reform bill that does not contain a "path to citizenship"
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours from my house!
Click to expand...

Hidee ho, Polgara and Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Wouldn't it be great if our government gave us a real Thanksgiving blessing with some responsible legislation instead of self serving nonsense?
 
The path to citizenship is laid out in the laws already on the books. Why is that such an issue?
 
sangha said:
The House is free to take the Senate bill and use it as a basis for their own bill including whatever changes they like in their new bill. Then they can send that to the Senate

Besides, Article 1 Section 7 applies to bills that raise revenue, not bills that spend it

The contentious issue isn't origination. It's the fact that the right refuses to consider any reform bill that contains a "path to citizenship" (even though the majority of americans want one) and the moderates and liberals refuse to consider a reform bill that does not contain a "path to citizenship"
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that is not normal order, and you know it...I understand that because the Repubs took the house, you'd rather have the demo majority in the senate dictate what should be done, but that is not how things are supposed to work...The house doesn't have to take up anything the senate tries to pass down, and bluster from those demo's and even the President is useless. Our branches are separate, but equal...You may be right on the absolute reading of Article 1 Section 7, only if you now all of the sudden want to stick to the strict adherence of wording (Generally because it suits you), however, as we both know regular order is that the House originates a bill, then the Senate comes up with their own version, and they go to committee to hammer out the differences and come up with a final version...To do it the way you want is only because Harry Reid would still run the show, and not Repubs like the people voted for....
 
j-mac said:
With all due respect, that is not normal order, and you know it...I understand that because the Repubs took the house, you'd rather have the demo majority in the senate dictate what should be done, but that is not how things are supposed to work...The house doesn't have to take up anything the senate tries to pass down, and bluster from those demo's and even the President is useless. Our branches are separate, but equal...You may be right on the absolute reading of Article 1 Section 7, only if you now all of the sudden want to stick to the strict adherence of wording (Generally because it suits you), however, as we both know regular order is that the House originates a bill, then the Senate comes up with their own version, and they go to committee to hammer out the differences and come up with a final version...To do it the way you want is only because Harry Reid would still run the show, and not Repubs like the people voted for....
Click to expand...

It is not an "absolute reading". It is what the text says.

But you're right that the House has no obligation to consider bills passed in the Senate. The converse is equally true - the Senate has no obligation to consider bills passed in the House, though that won't stop the right from incessantly whining about it.

So no, the "regular order" is not that all bills originate in the house. That only applies to bills that raise revenue (ie taxing bills)
 
AlbqOwl said:
Hidee ho, Polgara and Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Wouldn't it be great if our government gave us a real Thanksgiving blessing with some responsible legislation instead of self serving nonsense?
Click to expand...

Maybe we're hoping for the impossible? Seems so, but we'll see soon enough what the new Congress is able to accomplish! Their job is not going to be easy, but millions of people are rooting for them! :thumbs:
 
I wonder if somebody could provide a reasoned rationale for why a pathway to citizenship should be offered to people who have thumbed their noses at our laws and have benefitted greatly at our expense while others respect and obey our laws as they patiently wait for admission to this country?

Can anybody tell me how amnesty for millions of illegals will not affect corporate behavior? Why should an employer who is mandated to provide Obamacare for his/her employees keep those employees when he can lay off his blue collar workers and replace with illegals who presumably won't be eligible for Obamacare? How can millions of legalized illegals not make our more unemployable Americans even more hard core unemployable?

When Reagan, with consent of Congress, gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals on the promise that no more illegals would be allowed in, all he did was place a flashing neon sign over America: "Ya'll come and if you lay low for a bit, they'll let you stay forever." So now we have 11 to 20 million more illegals that the Senate bill would have made legal without first securing the border. What makes them think that this concept will not have the same result as that in the Reagan administration?

Remember the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom