Obama's Executive Order[W:265]

Misterveritis said:

You already know and have rejected his violations of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

You have presented none.

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

He voided the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Kobie said:

This has been a fun line that you've regurgitated numerous times, but it's pretty much utter nonsense.

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

I understand authoritarian statist greatly enjoy it when their politician finds a way to subvert the Constitution and to rule against the will of the citizens. I believe that none of you like this country as it was founded. Consent of the governed requires work. Those on your side love to shop for judges who will overturn the will of the citizens. Last time it was for the 2% of the population that is homosexual.

This time it is an executive order that will cost the citizens tens of billions in additional taxes, will cost the lives of citizens subjected to illegal alien felons and third world children walking among our children with diseases we long ago defeated. This sets the stage for one party rule, a loss of the American culture and our language. The traitor behaved as a conqueror on behalf of the invading aliens and not as a president. The coup plotters won and the federal government is in enemy hands.

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

Right. And none have been presented.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

So what besides reality is stopping you?

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

He voided the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

I think that all depends on how the 1986 law was written. What leeway it gave the president to execute that law. I don't know the answer to that. I am too lazy to look it up and read the law to find out.

I think all the commotion here is about this congress, the intent of this congress and not the one who passed the law back in 1986. The problem there is this congress intent is worthless, it is what the 1986 law states that counts. What authority did it give to a president to enforce what was written back then.

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

I suppose I should have marked that as sarcasm. He voided the Constitution. This is not something you are likely to think is important.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

I have no idea what that even means and apparently you do not either. I happen to think the Consitution is damn important and have done so for the last forty years during the dramatic build up of the Executive Branch under almost every president who has held the office and with the cooperation of Congress who seemed more than happy to go along.

So you and others are in the position of the Claud Raines character in CASABLANCA who tries to look shocked as he collects his winnings only to proclaim his shock that he has just learned there is gambling going on there and he must close Rick's Cafe American down.

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

He found a way to rule against the will of the American citizen. The authoritarian statists applaud him. I think impeachment must end this or the nation will fall. At this point I do not see anything that can prevent it short of an Article V convention of states.

Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:

I do not believe you.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

I think that all depends on how the 1986 law was written. What leeway it gave the president to execute that law. I don't know the answer to that. I am too lazy to look it up and read the law to find out.

I think all the commotion here is about this congress, the intent of this congress and not the one who passed the law back in 1986. The problem there is this congress intent is worthless, it is what the 1986 law states that counts. What authority did it give to a president to enforce what was written back then.

Click to expand...

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...

Perotista said:

Although I am not a legal scholar, but I would guess the temporary suspension of deportations probably was within the president's purview. But where he may have crossed the line was with work permits

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Actually, the laws which give the president the authority to do what he has recently done is explained here, complete with references to the specific sections of the US Code that grant him that authority
http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=754

See the 2nd paragraph in the quote above.

Click to expand...

Juanita said:

Well, perhaps if Boehner had brought the Senate's Immigration Bill to the floor for a vote, Reid would have brought some of Boehner's bills up as well. You think?

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Actually, the laws which give the president the authority to do what he has recently done is explained here, complete with references to the specific sections of the US Code that grant him that authority


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









See the 2nd paragraph in the quote above. Last sentence

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

One bill of 100's that they didn't. One bill of 100's that are still sitting in Reid's desk. Many jobs related, and other dealing with the country's business.

Of course, one could look at the number of bills from each of the houses, and pretty quickly see where the log jam is piled up at the Senate.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

So what? Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Look...Democrats like BIG bills, thousands of pages. Everything, including the kitchen sink, tossed in for good measure. Kind of like Obamacare.

But the House Republicans...Boehner, to be specific...want to deal with "immigration reform" in a realistic, logical step-by-step manner. Secure the border first. Once that's done, then deal with the other issues like how to deal with the millions of illegal aliens in the country, how to deal with the employers who insist on breaking the law, guest workers, legal immigration process. If you try to shove all this stuff in one humongous bill, things don't work right.

That Senate bill is 1200 pages. Add all the agency rules that come out of it and it'll be as big...and as useless...as Obamacare. But that's what the Democrats want and that's what Obama has been trying to force the House Republicans to pass. It's not going to work.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

No, he wouldn't.

But I'm wondering why you condone extortion on the part of the Democrats? "Pass my bill...or you'll be sorry!"

Click to expand...

Juanita said:

B.S. They could have passed it piecemeal if they had wanted, but they didn't.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

You don't know much about federal background checks, do you. That online background check is nothing compared to what the feds do. I know. I got a clearance way back. They personally met with and talked to my parent, relatives, friends and did a whole lot of other things.



Yes, actually I do. These people are not trying to get clearance for the CIA for Pete's sake! They would do standard criminal background checks!


In my case, it was worth it because they got years of service from me in return, but it wasn't cheap and it took them almost 6 months. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past Obama to go the useless "online" route you suggest to save time and money. He'll get what he paid for, for sure.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

No, he wouldn't.

But I'm wondering why you condone extortion on the part of the Democrats? "Pass my bill...or you'll be sorry!"

Click to expand...

Crovax said:

And what makes you think that? even ultra liberal TNR has admitted that the GOP can essentially abandon trying to appeal to latino voters and still win the white house.

Click to expand...

NIMBY said:

Exactly--Eric Cantor was actually trying a baby step when the TEA-party deep-sixed him for it and gave him a multi-million dollar payoff at a Wall Street bank .

Click to expand...