• 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!

D.a.c.a.

I actually don't have a problem with this action by Trump. My only criticism would be why not put this sunset into place in January, February so there wouldn't be this uncertainty now, on the day it was due to expire.
Why does everything have to be so convoluted?

Whether you agree with the program or not it's something that was a known entity. Don't you think it should have been addressed before now?
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

Southern Dad said:
President Obama decided this by decree, now President Trump is undoing that decree. So yes, you are right, it should not be decided by decree. It should be decided by our congress passing a bill that is sent to the president for his signature to make it a law.
Click to expand...

Unless it goes against liberal principles.
 
Southern Dad said:
Simple question for those that are opposed to President Donald J Trump ending DACA with a six month sunset clause, is it because you hate Trump and anything he does or because you want presidents to be able to change laws via executive fiat? President Obama decided to not enforce the laws and make this policy known as DACA. He did this by executive action. All President Trump is doing is saying that in six months, his administration will enforce the law of the land. The laws written and passed by the legislative branch of our government. How can anyone be opposed to this upcoming action signaled by the president?
Click to expand...

It still means that the POTUS is playing games with enforcing "the law of the land", obviously anticipating a change (to keeping his current DACA policy?) by congress. Trump is also doing a similar (the same?) thing by having IRS ignore the PPACA mandate and associated tax penalty for not being insured.

It is easy for me (and hopefully everyone) to object to the use of EOs to make/modify (add, change or delete?) law no matter who is POTUS. When the separation of powers clearly stated in the constitution are conditional then the entire law making process contaned in the constitution becomes subject to change based on EO. The idea that and EO can "undo" what congress has already addressed is the tail wagging the dog kind of thing.
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

Glowpun said:
This is a job for the Supreme Court to decide, not by decree.
Click to expand...

Immigration laws being applicable to children (or those that were once children) is not going to be ruled unconstitutional. Will your next argument be that only adults can be evicted if they fail to pay the rent or meet other terms of a lease agreement signed by their parents?
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

Glowpun said:
This is a job for the Supreme Court to decide, not by decree.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already weighed in. Obama made the decree. The action today will simply reverse that decree and put us back on the path to compliance with the law, except that Trump is reportedly going to give a 6 month delay in enforcing the law to give Congress a chance to change the law.
 
Cigar said:
I have no sympathy for these kids. Their parents broke the law.


I have no sympathy for these kids.

Their parents broke the law.

They don't have jobs.

They cost taxpayers money.

Deport Eric & Don Jr. and their immigrant stepmother



Ben Wexler‏@mrbenwexler
Click to expand...

Psst....Eric, Don Jr are Citizens of the US. Even if their mother were here illegally the fact that their father is a US citizen makes them a US citizen. Not to mention them just being born here makes them a US citizen also. As far as their mother goes, she immigrated here legally. And 99.5% of the people in the US have no problem with legal immigration. You're presenting a false equivalency.
 
Last edited:
We should do these kids (and not kids) a favor by sending them away from such a xenophobic, racist, bigoted country that just elected Hitler as president.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is exactly what Obama and now Trump (temporarily?) have done. The real question is: what does our constitution allow?

It is surely more "compassionate" to let parents keep more (all?) of their income so should the POTUS have the power to change the (minor) child federal income tax credit from what congress allowed to what they would prefer that congress had allowed?
Click to expand...

Compassionate reinterpretation or lack of enforcement on compassionate grounds is not part of the law. Article I of the Constitution gives a clear and unambiguous path to create or change a law. Article II, the Executive Branch's part, has no such wording, power, or authority - Prosecutorial discretion is not part of the Constitution, yet Article II, Section 3 specifically requires that “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed....”

The bolded section you referred to was me specifically stating that Congress, the only authorized and empowered branch of our government, to change the law if that's what we the people want to happen.

DACA is a breach of the law, on top of another breach of the law when those people came here.
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

Glowpun said:
This is a job for the Supreme Court to decide, not by decree.
Click to expand...

Didn't the entire DACA get put in place by decree? Probably an illegal decree.

What giveth can be taketh.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Compassionate reinterpretation or lack of enforcement on compassionate grounds is not part of the law. Article I of the Constitution gives a clear and unambiguous path to create or change a law. Article II, the Executive Branch's part, has no such wording, power, or authority - Prosecutorial discretion is not part of the Constitution, yet Article II, Section 3 specifically requires that “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed....”

The bolded section you referred to was me specifically stating that Congress, the only authorized and empowered branch of our government, to change the law if that's what we the people want to happen.

DACA is a breach of the law, on top of another breach of the law when those people came here.
Click to expand...

I agree yet we clearly seem to be headed towards, yet another, round of congressional amnesty simply because congress critters (and the POTUS) refuse to enforce federal immigration law. The POTUS uses the (valid?) excuse that they lack the funding required to do so (yet, of course, they never even requested it) and thus must "set priorities" (aka sanction very selective enforcement). How any rational person expects that an ICE force of about 5K field agents (about the size of the Boston, MA and Baltimore, MD police forces combined) can be expected to enforce federal immigration law within the entire US interior is beyond belief. We now have 10X as many TSA agents (federal airport nannies) as we have ICE agents and seem to pretend that will eventually git-r-done.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Psst....Eric, Don Jr are Citizens of the US. Even if their mother were here illegally the fact that their father is a US citizen makes them a US citizen. Not to mention them just being born here makes them a US citizen also. As far as their mother goes, she immigrated here legally. And 99.5% of the people in the US have no problem with legal immigration. You're presenting a false equivalency.
Click to expand...

Did you see anything in my post accusing them of being Illegal?
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

ttwtt78640 said:
It serves as both since it decrees that a law will not (no longer?) be enforced.
Click to expand...
It does more than just that. It creates a new "law" without going through Congress. It sets up an application and approval process, as well as provisions for renewal of status and the means of removing the status. It basically creates a whole new immigration status not supported by current law. That's a lot more than just not enforcing a law.
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

Moon said:
It does more than just that. It creates a new "law" without going through Congress. It sets up an application and approval process, as well as provisions for renewal of status and the means of removing the status. It basically creates a whole new immigration status not supported by current law. That's a lot more than just not enforcing a law.
Click to expand...

Yep, using the (valid?) excuse that "lack of resources" requires selective enforcement is one thing but actually wasting (diverting?) enforcement resources to do something completely outside (beyond?) the law is way over the top.
 
Middle_Ground said:
I actually don't have a problem with this action by Trump. My only criticism would be why not put this sunset into place in January, February so there wouldn't be this uncertainty now, on the day it was due to expire.
Why does everything have to be so convoluted?

Whether you agree with the program or not it's something that was a known entity. Don't you think it should have been addressed before now?
Click to expand...

He's giving a six month sunset. That gives the lawmakers a chance to pass something if they want to keep DACA.
 
Re: D.A.C.A.

Moderate Right said:
Unless it goes against liberal principles.
Click to expand...

There has to be some give and take. If you want to keep the Dreamers, are you willing to fund a wall? If you want to keep the PPACA, are you willing to cut Planned Parenthood funding? It's all swap.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It still means that the POTUS is playing games with enforcing "the law of the land", obviously anticipating a change (to keeping his current DACA policy?) by congress. Trump is also doing a similar (the same?) thing by having IRS ignore the PPACA mandate and associated tax penalty for not being insured.

It is easy for me (and hopefully everyone) to object to the use of EOs to make/modify (add, change or delete?) law no matter who is POTUS. When the separation of powers clearly stated in the constitution are conditional then the entire law making process contaned in the constitution becomes subject to change based on EO. The idea that and EO can "undo" what congress has already addressed is the tail wagging the dog kind of thing.
Click to expand...

President Obama also did not have the IRS enforce the PPACA mandate. He just kicked the can down the road by giving a year exemption, or two year exemption. President Trump is sunsetting an executive order, giving time for the lawmakers to address it. This is really the best option that he can do.
 
They're illegal aliens.

Deport them.

:shrug:
 
Cigar said:
Did you see anything in my post accusing them of being Illegal?
Click to expand...

1: You're in a thread that is about illegal immigration. If you're not talking about them being here illegally then you're not talking about the threads topic.

2: I know that you were not saying that they were here illegally. You were inferring that they should be kicked out because that is what actual xenophobics and anti-immigration people want. Problem is that you're applying what actual xenophobics and anti-immigrant groups are about to every single person that is against illegal immigration. In other words you are using broad brush strokes to paint everyone that is against illegal immigration as being xenophobics. No doubt you are using Eric, Don Jr, and Melania as an example because it relates to Trump and you believe that everyone that is against illegal immigration also supports Trump and would be against forcing them out simply because they support Trump. Thereby showing a double standard/hypocrisy and racism among them.

Sorry Cigar, your attempt failed, miserably.

3: Only other reason to say what you did is to troll. Is this what you're doing?
 
Southern Dad said:
President Obama also did not have the IRS enforce the PPACA mandate. He just kicked the can down the road by giving a year exemption, or two year exemption. President Trump is sunsetting an executive order, giving time for the lawmakers to address it. This is really the best option that he can do.
Click to expand...

Nope, Trump is (so far) doing exactly what he said that he opposed during his campaign and just pretending that congress has not already decided this "issue". The fact that Obama (or any other POTUS) did it too, or first, is not akin to a constitutional amendment to allow the POTUS to add, change or delete a federal law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, Trump is (so far) doing exactly what he said that he opposed during his campaign and just pretending that congress has not already decided this "issue". The fact that Obama (or any other POTUS) did it too, or first, is not akin to a constitutional amendment to allow the POTUS to add, change or delete a federal law.
Click to expand...

President Trump is doing exactly what he should be doing not this issue. He's ending the executive order, while still giving the congress time to address this. The congress has not decided this issue. If they had, they would have passed a bill to send to his desk.
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: You're in a thread that is about illegal immigration. If you're not talking about them being here illegally then you're not talking about the threads topic.

2: I know that you were not saying that they were here illegally. You were inferring that they should be kicked out because that is what actual xenophobics and anti-immigration people want. Problem is that you're applying what actual xenophobics and anti-immigrant groups are about to every single person that is against illegal immigration. In other words you are using broad brush strokes to paint everyone that is against illegal immigration as being xenophobics. No doubt you are using Eric, Don Jr, and Melania as an example because it relates to Trump and you believe that everyone that is against illegal immigration also supports Trump and would be against forcing them out simply because they support Trump. Thereby showing a double standard/hypocrisy and racism among them.

Sorry Cigar, your attempt failed, miserably.

3: Only other reason to say what you did is to troll. Is this what you're doing?
Click to expand...

Like I've said ... several times already .... TODAY.

In a little more than 2 years, Obama EO got 800k Illegals to register.

So tell me, what exactly did the Republicans do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom