• 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's Executive Order[W:265]

Is Obama breaking the law?

  • Yes, by his own words he is breaking the law

    Votes: 36 48.6%

  • No, perfectly legal

    Votes: 13 17.6%

  • Doing same as Regan and Bush did

    Votes: 13 17.6%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 4.1%

  • Dont care

    Votes: 3 4.1%

  • Go Fish

    Votes: 6 8.1%
  • Total voters
    74
Re: Obama's Executive Order

eohrnberger said:
Think about it. The lower paying jobs that these immigrants are taking are the starter jobs that those starting their working careers need to get started.
Click to expand...


So it's Obama's fault a company would rather hire an unskilled immigrant than an American teenager? Because no one is taking a job that someone isn't choosing to give to them. If McDonalds chooses to hire an immigrant to flip burgers instead of a high schooler getting started, what do you want the president to do?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

sawdust said:
It takes two to tango and Obama is the most partisan president in my memory and has created the most divided government in history.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And then turns around and blames the Republicans for the situations that he creates, that he manipulates into being.

And the Obamabots here, there, and everywhere, especially in the Biased Lame Stream Media parrot the smae blame casting from a common set of talking points. Enough to turn your stomach. :vomit:
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

pbrauer said:
He said he didn't have the power to grant amnesty which is quite correct. What he spoke about last night was only a temporary measure, it does not grant amnesty.
Click to expand...

Hi Pete,

That's actually not what he said.

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.“


Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall | The White House

In 2011 he said he didn't have the power to do this. In 2014 he said he had the power to do this. He didn't mention amnesty in 2011.

What changed?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
Are you supposed to be the rational one here? I "was" discussing the topic and letting you know my opinions on your stand. They suck! You never answered my question. I'm trying to quit smoking and not doing well, so don't **** with me!
Click to expand...
Cut the tough-girl threats and ask a specific detailed question that's solely on-topic sans unwarranted accusations of hatred against the poster.

Try again.

Do it right, by the forum rules, and you'll get your on-topic response from me.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

eohrnberger said:
A good bit of logic and common sense this.

And hence a perfectly reasonable and logical foundation for eliminating the 'anchor baby' regulations and scenario. While it may have served the country in the past, that time has long since gone, and only caused greater complications for immigration policy and enforcement.
Click to expand...

This falls along the same lines of "The government should get out of marriage". While it sounds like a good slogan, the reality is the government is never going to get out of marriage and you aren't going to ever see an electable candidate say "Get rid of the anchor baby amendment". It simply isn't going to happen.

The better idea is to concentrate on securing the border. Without securing the border, any other policy is pretty much irrelevant short of increasing enforcement of laws.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

pbrauer said:
I seem to remember President George W.Bush tried to get immigration reform, but the Republicans were against it even then.

The last president who couldn't get Congress to act on immigration - CBS News
Click to expand...

True.

But what does that have to do with anything about how Obama creates a situation (to the detriment of the very people he claims to be trying to help) that makes it impossible to pass bi-partisan supported legislation? This recurring pattern of his, as is the purposeful aid and support of it by Reid, is the source of the congressional gridlock.

Is this his idea of good governance? I'm find it to be seriously lacking.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

americanwoman said:
So it's Obama's fault a company would rather hire an unskilled immigrant than an American teenager? Because no one is taking a job that someone isn't choosing to give to them. If McDonalds chooses to hire an immigrant to flip burgers instead of a high schooler getting started, what do you want the president to do?
Click to expand...

Indirectly, yes. We've got historically low employment for these young people, mainly due to the present state of the economy, and Obama's decision here, rather than making it easier for young US citizens, is it make it easier for illegal immigrants to compete for those same jobs, making it harder for these young US citizens.

So, yea, he chose supporting and helping illegal immigrants over US citizens. I just hope these young people don't forget who and which party did that to them.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

tres borrachos said:
Hi Pete,

That's actually not what he said.

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.“


Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall | The White House

In 2011 he said he didn't have the power to do this. In 2014 he said he had the power to do this. He didn't mention amnesty in 2011.

What changed?
Click to expand...

Political advantage...that's what changed.

When he made his previous statements, he was trying to placate his base because he didn't want to take the actions they wanted him to take. But now, he sees an advantage by reversing himself and going through with what they want.

The ends justify the means.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

tres borrachos said:
Hi Pete,

That's actually not what he said.

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.“


Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall | The White House

In 2011 he said he didn't have the power to do this. In 2014 he said he had the power to do this. He didn't mention amnesty in 2011.

What changed?
Click to expand...
All the liberals who say Obama has the power to do what he is doing aren't arguing with republicans. They are arguing with Obama. It was Obama, the Constitutional law professor that argued over and over and over again that he could not legally do what he is doing. But this issue proves once again that liberals aren't interested in the Constitution, they aren't interested in honesty, they aren't interested in what they said yesterday. They are interested in power. And that's it.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

sangha said:
No, they do not explicitly refer to work authorizations, but they remove the "unauthorized alien" status from the immigrant which is what prevents them from getting work authorization.

8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(1) explicitly states that "An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive" is one of the "Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment."
Click to expand...

Ah, I missed (11) under (a)
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Personally...I felt this was all much ado about what turns out to be 'nothing'. The 'legality' hinges on one word...permanent. If Obama issued an EO granting anyone permanent status then yes...he is violating the Constitution and it should be overturned. Current immigration policy and law defines how that status is changed and obtained. EOs cannot overturn law. So...as long as Obama is saying that as long as he is president his justice department will seek to grant temporary legal working status to citizens so long as they pass a background check and they will NOT deport them, then thats probably fine. Illegal immigrants should understand...its not a promise of amnesty. Its not a permanent legal residency status, it doesnt impact all illegal immigrants, it doesnt pave the way for more to come here illegally, it doesnt make them citizens. The understanding though is that when the next president takes over, BO's XO, is GO ne.

This is ALL about politics and posturing. It will be interesting to see how both parties play the cards Obama is dealing them. Republicans could screw this up royally, but then, so could the democrats.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

1750Texan said:
You got your "law" terms confused. Deportation is in no way a punishment.

Border Patrol agents have the authority to turn back border crossers they encounter. Are BP agents judges that are authorized to adjudicate a sentence and deliver a judgement of deportation? Of course not.

Immigration is Administrative law; not criminal law. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Whatever semantics you wish to employ, the reality remains that the Obama administration has rounded up and deported quite a number of illegal aliens.

If amnesty is what it is, then what is the it the illegal aliens would receive amnesty about.

Their trespassing?

Their identity forging?

Their unlawful attainment of employment (facilitated by their accomplice U.S. bosses!)?

Their violation of U.S. customs law?

All their other associated frauds?

Some of which are felonies?

Yes .. all of these.

And since Obama has continued the precedent of waving these criminals' obligation to pay restitution to the Americans from whom they stole, and waving these criminals' associated prison sentences followed by deportation when they're released ..

.. And instead simply sentencing them to deportation ..

.. What is the penalty, the obvious, punitive penalty to them, that amnesty is preventing the millions of illegal aliens Obama is pardoning in his speech from receiving?

That's right: deportation.

Obama can employ semantics sophistry and say, "no, it's not amnesty -- it's 'prosecutorial discretion'. :roll:

But a spade's a spade -- everyone knows it's amnesty, and obviously so.

If deportation is not a penalty, if it's not a punishment, then the government has no right to act in deportation, as there would be no grounds warranted for it, as forcing a person's body away from a demographic that person chose to be on for so many years is clearly punitive.

Even in administrative law there are statutes that state punishments for failures, often in the form of a fee.

Deportation is that punishment here.

But, this is really not the point, is it.

The point is that Obama's plan is amnesty for illegal aliens, which he simply cannot do by constitutional law without a pardon.

A piece of crap by any other name would smell as foul.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

tres borrachos said:
Hi Pete,

That's actually not what he said.

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.“


Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall | The White House

In 2011 he said he didn't have the power to do this. In 2014 he said he had the power to do this. He didn't mention amnesty in 2011.

What changed?
Click to expand...

He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

TheNextEra said:
This falls along the same lines of "The government should get out of marriage". While it sounds like a good slogan, the reality is the government is never going to get out of marriage and you aren't going to ever see an electable candidate say "Get rid of the anchor baby amendment". It simply isn't going to happen.

The better idea is to concentrate on securing the border. Without securing the border, any other policy is pretty much irrelevant short of increasing enforcement of laws.
Click to expand...

This isn't like the government licensed marriage where you can at least argue there is government granted benefits to it, but an irrational policy that leaves immigration law being impossible to enforce without splitting families.

It might make people feel really good, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. I know people absolutely love the fourteenth amendment, but the fact of the matter is it does at least need to be replaced with an amendment that stops this idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Henrin said:
This isn't like the government licensed marriage where you can at least argue there is government granted benefits to it, but an irrational policy that leaves immigration law being impossible to enforce without splitting families.
Click to expand...

benefits? like healthcare? Obama can't do that, but individual states like Ca. can do that for them. Don't think they won't.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

pbrauer said:
He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite
Click to expand...

In other words, he lied back then, right? I mean, do you think it's reasonable that he's able to understand the law now...but couldn't understand the law back then? Heck, it makes me wonder if he even understands the law now.

But, hey...if he says it, it's true, right? Even if it's not.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Henrin said:
This isn't like the government licensed marriage where you can at least argue there is government granted benefits to it, but an irrational policy that leaves immigration law being impossible to enforce without splitting families.

It might make people feel really good, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that getting rid of the anchor baby amendment is not a popular view so it isn't going to happen. That is reality, that is why I compared it to "the government getting out of marriage".

There isn't a popular view of getting rid of that amendment so those candidates aren't going to hold that view that go up for election. A more tangible solution is to secure the border and enforce the laws we have on the books now. Getting rid of the anchor baby amendment is a pipe dream.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Meister said:
benefits? like healthcare? Obama can't do that, but individual states like Ca. can do that for them. Don't think they won't.
Click to expand...

And if they choose to do so, it's their option to do so.

I thought the right was all about "states rights". I guess that gets thrown under the bus whenever they decide they don't like those states' rights.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Meister said:
benefits? like healthcare? Obama can't do that, but individual states like Ca. can do that for them. Don't think they won't.
Click to expand...

They can add whatever they want to marriage benefits if they feel like doing it. It's not as if anything in the marriage arrangement is outside the governments purview.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

sangha said:
And if they choose to do so, it's their option to do so.

I thought the right was all about "states rights". I guess that gets thrown under the bus whenever they decide they don't like those states' rights.
Click to expand...

Anyone interested in limited government has to limit the power given to states. I don't see how you can have unlimited power on one side and limited power on the other and not have enormous government pretty quick.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

sangha said:
And if they choose to do so, it's their option to do so.

I thought the right was all about "states rights". I guess that gets thrown under the bus whenever they decide they don't like those states' rights.
Click to expand...

Just bringing out the fact that these illegals are going to get benefits that your messiah stated they wouldn't.
I was just informing the ill informed, seems there are a lot of them on this board.

Glad you have the honesty to admit that they are going to get the bene's.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

TheNextEra said:
I'm arguing that getting rid of the anchor baby amendment is not a popular view so it isn't going to happen. That is reality, that is why I compared it to "the government getting out of marriage".

There isn't a popular view of getting rid of that amendment so those candidates aren't going to hold that view that go up for election. A more tangible solution is to secure the border and enforce the laws we have on the books now. Getting rid of the anchor baby amendment is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

You still have to concern yourself with those that get past your grasp. Prevention is great and all, but crime actually does happen and you can't have a huge gaping hole that makes enforcement problematic.

The people might very well love it, but if they were smart they would realize you can't be for the anchor baby amendment and immigration law at the same time.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Henrin said:
Anyone interested in limited government has to limit the power given to states. I don't see how you can have unlimited power on one side and limited power on the other and not have enormous government pretty quick.
Click to expand...

I see you're big on a large central government, socialists like that kind of government.
Our FF's wanted a smaller central government and more power for the state governments.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Meister said:
I see you're big on a large central government, socialists like that kind of government.
Our FF's wanted a smaller central government and more power for the state governments.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm for no government. Still, US history has not been kind to this blatantly irrational idea where we try to limit government by failing to restrain states. If you want limited government you kind of have to restrain all levels of government. States can in fact be pretty damn oppressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom