Tywin Manderly Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Please continue. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 So what exactly is the big deal here? As far as I can tell, all this move does is grant a measure of legitimacy to the status quo. Some 3-5 million people get a legal 3 year stay, but 95%+ of them were never going to be deported in the first place (we don't have the resources for deportation on a mass scale). I guess it's nice for those affected who need not no longer be afraid of being the unlucky few who do get deported, but on the other hand, they have to pay back taxes, they get nothing from the federal government in benefits and there's no guarantee whatsoever that the next president will not undo this. Does anything actually change here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I love the five year clause. Because there is definitely a way to verify that and everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 That's pretty much it. We're certainly not helping ourselves with our current immigration system, the president is absolutely right when he says the current system is more of an amnesty than what he's proposing. I'm not an Obama fan but I will give him credit where he deserves it. Realistically work permits and getting all of our undocumented workers into the system helps de-incentivize hiring illegals over legals since employers can't get away with paying less than at least the bare minimum wage. And if Republicans aren't going to pass anything (their own bill in this case) then good for the president for finally doing something. Vanilla as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 helps de-incentivize hiring illegals over legals You do realize this makes no sense, right? They are still illegal, Obama's just not going to enforce the law and deport them. He's willingly neglecting to do the job he swore to do. Not only that but by giving them work permits, he is creating law. He's not authorized to do so. This will be shut down. Pretty embarrassing if your a leftist really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 You do realize this makes no sense, right? They are still illegal, Obama's just not going to enforce the law and deport them. He's willingly neglecting to do the job he swore to do. Not only that but by giving them work permits, he is creating law. He's not authorized to do so. This will be shut down. Pretty embarrassing if your a leftist reallyThe President has the full authority to determine how to enact/enforce a law. Thus he holds the ability to tell agents not to focus on deportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 The President has the full authority to determine how to enact/enforce a law. Thus he holds the ability to tell agents not to focus on deportation. He's not enacting or enforcing anything though. He's actually refusing to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 He's not enacting or enforcing anything though. He's actually refusing to do so.Still a decision available to the PresidentMoreover, I am sure you have told how Reagan and Bush Sr. performed similar actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Still a decision available to the President I checked the constitution, I didn't see that. Mind sharing with me where you did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 "Anyone who thinks the legal arguments behind Obama's immigration order are radical hasn't read them yet" The fundamental fact is this: There are 11.3 million people in the United States who, for one reason or another, are deportable. The largest number that can be deported in any year under the resources provided by Congress is somewhere around 400,000. Congress has recognized this and in 6 U.S.C. 202 (5) it has directed the secretary of homeland security to establish “national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.” In the action announced tonight, the secretary has done just that, and the president has approved. ... In cases such as Heckler v. Chaney (1985), the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that where Congress has not provided guidelines for executive enforcement, the determination of enforcement priorities is within the “special province of the Executive.” This is especially clear in the area of immigration. As the court recently noted in Arizona v. United States (201w), some of the discretionary deportation decisions the executive makes are appropriately based on general policy considerations, such as concerns implicating foreign affairs.... Perhaps what has understandably concerned critics most is not merely the deferral of deportation proceedings but the affirmative step of permitting those whose deportation is deferred to then apply for authorization to work while they remain in the United States. But here the president is not acting unilaterally nor even on the basis of an inferred discretion. He is, rather, acting on the basis of specific statutory authority from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under that authority and by pre-existing regulation, the secretary of homeland security is authorized to grant authorization to work to those who are in the “deferred action” category. If Congress does not want those whose deportation is to be deferred to be able to work lawfully, it can certainly repeal this regulatory authority. But it has not done so, and for good reason: Those who are able to demonstrate economic necessity to work will undergo background checks and pay local, state, and federal taxes, something a lot of Americans support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Still a decision available to the PresidentMoreover, I am sure you have told how Reagan and Bush Sr. performed similar actions.No, Reagan did so with bipartisan legislation. An actual bill. Don't believe everything your liberal friends tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 No, Reagan did so with bipartisan legislation. An actual bill. Don't believe everything your liberal friends tell you. After issuing an executive order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Still a decision available to the PresidentMoreover, I am sure you have told how Reagan and Bush Sr. performed similar actions.Was Bush or Reagans actions challenged in court? I have no idea whether its legal or not, Obama himself has implied that he does not have the authority to do this. It seems likely that it will be challenged in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Still a decision available to the PresidentMoreover, I am sure you have told how Reagan and Bush Sr. performed similar actions.Please tell me that you are not suggesting that if someone breaks a law then it's ok for someone else to break the same law later. Because that isn't a good defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Please tell me that you are not suggesting that if someone breaks a law then it's ok for someone else to break the same law later. Because that isn't a good defense. Seeing how I haven't said Obama, Reagan, or Bush Sr. broke the law.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 After issuing an executive order No when he signed legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Please tell me that you are not suggesting that if someone breaks a law then it's ok for someone else to break the same law later. Because that isn't a good defense. Reagan didn't break a law!! He actually signed off on one. That's the point! Obama has no legislation. What he's done is abandon his responsibility to ENFORCE the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Reagan didn't break a law!! He actually signed off on one. That's the point! Obama has no legislation. What he's done is abandon his responsibility to ENFORCE the law. Reagan equally issued an executive action on the issue, the fact that he signed off on legislation on the issue at another time doesn't change that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Was Bush or Reagans actions challenged in court? I have no idea whether its legal or not, Obama himself has implied that he does not have the authority to do this. It seems likely that it will be challenged in court. He's said multiple times that he didn't have the authority. And he was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 No when he signed legislation Either way it (Reagan's immigration reform) was a massive failure and ultimately resulted in a much bigger amnesty than Obama could ever dream of passing, plus it decriminalized hiring illegals over legal immigrants and US citizens. Reagan is a conservative hero but it escapes me why exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.