Obama puts hold on derpoting certain illegal immigrants

[CaptainMattJ.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html

Are we ever going to get a leader that will stand up to illegal immigrants? The only thing this will change is the flow of illegals, which will grow exponentially, with parents dragging along more and more anchor babies and children.

Where do we stop. When will we finally shut down the borders and stand up to these illegal immigrants. the mexican government outwardly encourages illegal immigrants, even giving them pointers, BROCHURES on how to sneak across, yet we arent doing anything about it.

When will we stop letting in these illegal immigrants with open arms. :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

Commander ass hat has gotta get his votes somewhere.

During the last presidential election I *at least* respected the guy.

Now I can't stand the stupid bastard

-the unedited version of this post contained about a dozen swear words-

[JU_88]

Are we ever going to get a leader that will stand up to... . :nope:

Their word? No probably not.

[the_tyrant]

To be fair, it is a way of recouping the investment the US has put into these children

I mean, come on, attending school in the US must not be cheap for the government. Why send them back to mexico, where the expense is footed by the US government but the mexican one gets to take income taxes from them?

[mookiemookie]

On one hand this doesn't do anything to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. It doesn't do anything to keep illegal immigrants from taking up school spots and scholarships from legal residents.

But on the other hand, deporting someone who entered the country illegal through no choice of their own, with no understanding of the consequences of this choice that was made for them, no other life or means of making a life someplace else...I don't know how much sense that makes either. I suppose it's a good thing that they have an opportunity to become legal where they didn't before.

Pretty conflicted about this. I see both sides of the argument. But in any case what's worrying is the number of ways that both Bush and Obama have come up with to circumvent the lawmaking process. These legal loopholes that let a president pretty much do what they want are not the way the system is supposed to work. Whether or not you agree with what they've done using these processes, it sets a precedent for future presidents. I shudder to think of the policies that a President Palin would enact using signing statements and the like.

[Betonov]

Weed out the leeches and troublemakers from hard-workers and brains. Keep the good seed and deport the rest

[CaptainHaplo]

Pretty conflicted about this. I see both sides of the argument.

I don't often agree with the Mookster - but there is a moral and ethical side to this. You shouldn't punish someone who has not - by their own choice and action - committed a crime. Mere existence isn't a crime.

My issue isn't the reason behind it - its how its being done and the effect it will have. Not only is it an end run around Congress as Mookie pointed out - but its timing is highly suspect. Still, lets move past that.

This is an unmitigated disaster for the economic prospects of many American citizens. Unemployment was already creeping up, people were leaving the workforce due to lack of jobs, and now anywhere from 800k to 3 Million additional "workers" just got dumped into the equation. How is that good for the guy on the street that has already been looking for work for the last 18 months?

The immigration aspect of this also is a disaster, but that will take some time to see. Mark my words - this will turn out to be a huge error for us all.

The topic is one that must be dealt with - but we have Congress for reasons - one of which is that the Senate is supposed to be the "deliberative" body - the one that slows things down and THINKS about the results of actions before they are implimented. End runs - especially on legislation that has already failed - often has disastrous results. This will be one of those. Brace yourselves, we are in for a bumpy ride.

[Rockin Robbins]

Right or wrong, the president does not have the power to decide to change or simply not enforce the law of the land. He took an oath of office to uphold those laws and his action of yesterday is actually an impeachable offense. Hopefully nobody will push that impeachment button. Simply revealing that the position is against the law is sufficient.

He said so himself last year, that he did not have the power to change the law and it will be very difficult for him to escape the power or his own words on the issue. We are not an autocracy, we are a government of three branches, each having its specific function to balance the power of the other two.

If what he wants is a good idea, the right way to do business is for Congress to pass a law and then for the executive branch to enforce it. Rule by executive fiat is for other lands, not ours.

[Sailor Steve]

...his action of yesterday is actually an impeachable offense.
How so? I agree that this is a bad idea, but what High Crime or Misdemeanor was committed?

[gimpy117]

I remember and old legal precedent; it goes back to the days of feudal England. In it, was the Idea that if one lived in on land; openly and notoriously for around 8 years one would receive that land even if it wasn't theirs.The Idea was; that the lords would rather receive the taxes from these people; than give back the land and stop making money. I think we can draw parallels to this. what if certain Illegal Immigrants; or for this matter their Kids are making payments to Income tax? They are driving OUR economy...and also no the mention the fact that companies make more money off of their cheap labor. Lets face it; Illegals are a moneymaker...and who wants to shoot a gift horse in the mouth?

[Rockin Robbins]

Violation of his oath to enforce the laws of the land. That is the bedrock of the function of the executive branch of United States Government: to execute the laws. (hence the name of the branch)

We don't impeach people for real reasons, though. We need something sexy and appealing to the celeb loving crowd!:D We've reduced impeachment to a cynical act of "ours is bigger than yours."

Therefore I think that it is almost always the wrong thing to do. In Clinton's case, for instance, the only legitimate issue was one of national security--did top secret discussions take place with "others" without necessary security clearance present. As you recall, nobody asked that question. They were only interested in DNA analysis of the stain on her dress.....http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/banana_sad-1.gif

After all Franklin Roosevelt committed impeachable offenses in saving the world for Western representative governments. Abraham Lincoln committed impeachable offenses in saving the Union. But neither was impeached, much less convicted. There are plenty of other examples.

Impeachment is traditionally a petty act of tyranny by congress to destroy a president they do not like, not the reluctant removal of a criminal that it was meant to be. We don't need to go there.

[nikimcbee]

Violation of his oath to enforce the laws of the land. That is the bedrock of the function of the executive branch of United States Government: to execute the laws. (hence the name of the branch)

We don't impeach people for real reasons, though. We need something sexy and appealing to the celeb loving crowd!:D We've reduced impeachment to a cynical act of "ours is bigger than yours."

Therefore I think that it is almost always the wrong thing to do. In Clinton's case, for instance, the only legitimate issue was one of national security--did top secret discussions take place with "others" without necessary security clearance present. As you recall, nobody asked that question. They were only interested in DNA analysis of the stain on her dress.....http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/banana_sad-1.gif

After all Franklin Roosevelt committed impeachable offenses in saving the world for Western representative governments. Abraham Lincoln committed impeachable offenses in saving the Union. But neither was impeached, much less convicted. There are plenty of other examples.

Impeachment is traditionally a petty act of tyranny by congress to destroy a president they do not like, not the reluctant removal of a criminal that it was meant to be. We don't need to go there.

Just for you RR:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/17/curl-obama-a-domestic-enemy-of-the-us-constitution/?page=all#pagebreak

[Bilge_Rat]

Is it a political decision, obviously.

Is it an impeachable offence, obviously not.

No President has ever enforced every act of Congress 100% as Congress intended or even 100% as written or even every Act adopted by Congress. There is ample Constitutional precedent for what Obama has done.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I remember and old legal precedent; it goes back to the days of feudal England. In it, was the Idea that if one lived in on land; openly and notoriously for around 8 years one would receive that land even if it wasn't theirs.The Idea was; that the lords would rather receive the taxes from these people; than give back the land and stop making money. I think we can draw parallels to this. what if certain Illegal Immigrants; or for this matter their Kids are making payments to Income tax? They are driving OUR economy...and also no the mention the fact that companies make more money off of their cheap labor. Lets face it; Illegals are a moneymaker...and who wants to shoot a gift horse in the mouth?
There is a reason we have an immigration system. if everyone who wanted to get in got in, our country would be yet another 3rd world country. oversaturation wouldnt describe the job market if we allowed every immigrant that wanted to, free access to citizenship.

Illegal immigrants have been steadily lowering the standard of living in every area they settle down en masse. Because they tend to work for so little, companies hire them over citizens. because the immigrants earn so little and the citizen is now out of work, what now? people's standard of living goes down. Not to mention the criminal and financial burden of putting so many immigrants on welfare and being more inclined for children to lead a life of crime. our system cant deal with so many people flooding our system.

Sure, they arent responsible for being brought or born here, their parents are. Well what can we do against the parents, deport them and make the kid stay? That would only make things worse for these kids, and the system. So not just these kids are getting passes, but their whole family is allowed to stay. Its ridiculous. Illegal immigrants cause more problems than they help with.

And now, with rising college costs (AND the dream act, giving away money to illegal immigrants instead of the 10th generation American citizen who has to pay more and more for college), and the oversaturation of the job market, Citizen teens can no longer get jobs to support their way through college, making their need for student loans extreme and excessive. Theres more to this than an immigrant getting a job and paying taxes. we cant handle the amount of people that suddenly appear in the system, and its a fact. there are already alot of people in the lifeboat, taking on any more will slowly sink us further and further. Why people cant understand or take action against it is beyond me.

[nikimcbee]

@ Capt Matt,
Doesn't Kali-fornia allow illegals to pay "in-state tuition?" So, say, if I wanted to go to a CA school, I would get charged out of state tuition. But if I was not a legal US citizen, I could get in state tuition.:up:

[nikimcbee]

Is it a political decision, obviously.

Is it an impeachable offence, obviously not.

No President has ever enforced every act of Congress 100% as Congress intended or even 100% as written or even every Act adopted by Congress. There is ample Constitutional precedent for what Obama has done.

It's a good thing, this is an election year, because the votere can resolve the issue themselves, intead of relying on congress to do something.

If you agree with his move vote, for him. If you don't, time to send him packing.

[Madox58]

It will end up being bloody.
When it gets to the tipping point? People will take things into thier own hands.

Watch and see the Human Race at it's finest.

[Rockin Robbins]

Just for you RR:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/17/curl-obama-a-domestic-enemy-of-the-us-constitution/?page=all#pagebreak

That's no news article, it's just cheerleading: more of the reduction of serious issues into a sports event metaphor. It was correct that the same people who criticized the Bush presidency for over-reaching the constitution are now silent when Obama does the same thing. However you didn't see Bush directing the justice department to prosecute a state for enforcing clearly stated and historically enforced election laws.

But the question remains: Is it OK to impeach a president for unzipping his pants in an inappropriate place but not to impeach for failure to execute the laws of the land? How about for setting up the offices of a foreign government up in downtown New York City? Or by presidential fiat, suspending habeas corpus and jailing thousands of Americans with no charges at all for indefinite time periods? Impeachment should be impeached and the voters should decide the questions at the regularly scheduled elections: no recalls, no impeachments. If law enforcement actually prosecutes them for shoplifting or securities fraud then let 'em be removed, but short of a crime committed, elections should have consequences. If you don't like the consequence, then get out and vote!

American politics is still much more civil than British politics, where outright nastiness is the order of the day, much as it was in the American congress during the first half of the nineteenth century. Senator Charles Sumner got knocked senseless by some southern hothead and was never the same again. Today that is unthinkable. There won't be any violence. At least not on the scale of a riot. There could well be a disconnected murder or two. There always are, and there doesn't even have to be a reason for it.

The fact here is that Obama had to do what he did (in his mind) because there was no possibility that Congress was going to do it. He's an amateur trying the Clinton triangulation theory and doesn't understand how it works. Clinton's triangulation consisted in taking issues from the conservatives and making them his own: ending welfare as we know it, for instance. Obama is going more radical left, leaving even his own party milling around in the center wondering whether to follow or run for their lives. Either is possible.

The real question isn't whether it's ok for our guy to violate the law and bad for the other guy. Both sides here are for dictatorial abuse if the right guy does it. The real question is whether we are going to be ruled by law or ruled by men. Only in a country ruled by laws is there protection for the little guy. Countries governed by men are democracies. Democracy is thuggery at its worst: two cats and a mouse voting over who's for dinner. Only a law requiring respect for the powerless can protect them from the tyranny of the majority. There's nothing more dangerous than an angry, democratic mob. Ask the French about their revolution. That was where democracy leads. That is what good law protects us all from. Therefore laws must be enforced. If we don't think those laws are just, then we have legislative means to change those laws. Neither the Judicial nor the Executive branch has the lawful right to make laws. They must be prohibited from doing so if our representative government is going to survive.

That means that the sports mentality of both sides has to go. It is NOT okay to violate the law if it's your guy doing it. It's not okay to prosecute a president for unzipping his pants unless you can point to a specific high crime (that really needs some serious definition there!) committed. Frivolous prosecution should be punished as well as violation of the law. Both diminish respect for the law and encourage others to disregard it.

So no, I'm no fan of whatever that was from the Washington Times. It's rooted in the same "we good--they bad" thing that goes on at Florida/Florida State football games. This is more serious than that.

[Bilge_Rat]

The real question isn't whether it's ok for our guy to violate the law and bad for the other guy. Both sides here are for dictatorial abuse if the right guy does it. The real question is whether we are going to be ruled by law or ruled by men. Only in a country ruled by laws is there protection for the little guy. Countries governed by men are democracies. Democracy is thuggery at its worst: two cats and a mouse voting over who's for dinner. Only a law requiring respect for the powerless can protect them from the tyranny of the majority. There's nothing more dangerous than an angry, democratic mob. Ask the French about their revolution. That was where democracy leads. That is what good law protects us all from. Therefore laws must be enforced. If we don't think those laws are just, then we have legislative means to change those laws. Neither the Judicial nor the Executive branch has the lawful right to make laws. They must be prohibited from doing so if our representative government is going to survive.



A noble sentiment to be sure and maybe it should work that way in Utopia, however, no justice system has ever worked like that in the history of mankind, certainly not the common law criminal justice systems in Canada, USA, or UK.

If you want every law to be 100% applied as intended, you would have to increase the number of police officers, inspectors, auditors, prosecutors, judges, court staff, prison guards by a factor of 10, with a corresponding increase in the budget.

Selective enforcement/ prosecutorial discretion has always been an unavoidable fact of life in a justice system. The reasons for that are many: lack of resources, laws no longer being in tune with social norms or the chief executive not agreeing with the law.

What Obama did, a 2 year moratorium against deportation for certain groups, is actually quite mild. Given the current backlog in immigration courts, it will have little practical impact since immigration courts are already prioritising the worst offenders for deportation.

Obama is also far from the worst offender in selective enforcement, Reagan is the one who institutionalized "signing statements".

If Congress does not agree, all they have to do is to immediately pass a law forcing the administration to deport all these people. Of course, that is not going to happen since the GOP is also courting the Latino vote. :shifty:

[Ducimus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE

[August]

Is it OK to impeach a president for unzipping his pants in an inappropriate place


Clinton wasn't impeached for that. He was impeached for lying under oath. Big difference.

[Sailor Steve]

Clinton wasn't impeached for that. He was impeached for lying under oath. Big difference.
No, he was impeached because the Republicans were looking for any excuse to get rid of him. It was a witch hunt, and politically motivated from the start.

[Rockin Robbins]

A noble sentiment to be sure and maybe it should work that way in Utopia, however, no justice system has ever worked like that in the history of mankind, certainly not the common law criminal justice systems in Canada, USA, or UK.

If you want every law to be 100% applied as intended....:shifty:
You can stop that train right now. That's enough, especially since you already said it above and I don't need to quote any more of that paper tiger.

NO LAW IS 100% "APPLIED!" Get that? We have laws against murder. People are still killed. We have laws against fraud. Bernie Madoff committed what? We have laws against speeding. We have laws against robbing convenience stores. We have laws against assault. Do those things still happen? Should we then take your advice and simply cease enforcing those laws? Smooth move Ex-Lax. You've just created hell on earth.

The purpose of laws is to create a better society than we have. They seek to provide SOME protection for the victims, the weak of society from the predators, the ones who think that by virtue of their willingness to use force or lie to you seek to separate you from your lawfully owned belongings, family and/or life. We pass laws knowing full-well that they will not eliminate the behavior made illegal. But they will make an example of those caught violating the laws, making a statement about the kind of society we are trying to build, warning others inclined to commit those acts that they too may meet this treatment, and giving the populace some sense of security that in this land such illegal conduct will not willingly be tolerated.

Now, there will always be three groups of people:


Those who willingly seek to obey the law, seeing that the purpose of the law is to mold a better society and knowing that this is a just country where there are legal means to correct laws which, by the law of unintended consequences, prove to be unjust.
Those who willingly seek to disobey the laws, seeing that those laws just cut down on the numbers of their fellow predators and so made their field of victims much vaster. These people tend not to pay much attention to the logical consequences of their act.
Those like you, the cynics: allies of the lawless who seek to diminish respect for the law itself, rendering a ready excuse for any criminal out there to echo your foolish words: the law didn't eliminate bad behavior so it's the law that is bad and ineffective. It's like the moron who ran out of gas in his car and blamed the car because it should have had a bigger gas tank. Confusion of cause and effect is pretty common though. You have lots of company.


The issue isn't whether Obama's policy makes sense or not. The issue is the methodology the President used to circumvent the law. His method, which he KNOWS is illegal (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-obama-deporting-illegals-america-nation-laws-presidential-action-not) and said so in a 2011 town hall meeting, is to simply ignore the law and laugh in the face of it. An action such as this from a President is much more serious than if you do it. He is supposed to be in a position of leadership, with the specific function of enforcing those laws. Failure to do so certainly is a violation of his oath and duties of office and there are appropriate ways to deal with that. Impeachment is not one of them because it is a thoroughly discredited process. Let's have some sane laws passed by Congress with the backing of the public.

A conservative but sensible view of this can be found at http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jun/18/its-not-policy-its-methodology/. This is not that Washington Times kneejerk claptrap but a thoughtful treatment of the issue which won't make either side happy. Too bad. That's the way it should be. I don't give a rat's patootie if "no justice system has ever...."

[Sailor Steve]

Smooth move Ex-Lax.
Heated debate is fine, but please keep it civil.

[Rockin Robbins]

No, he was impeached because the Republicans were looking for any excuse to get rid of him. It was a witch hunt, and politically motivated from the start.
And they ignored that what President Clinton did was conduct top secret conversations while Monica was present. She was not cleared for any level of security and that act was an impeachable offense.

However, the brilliant Republicans decided that the side story was most juicy and prosecuted on the basis of something that John F Kennedy was certainly guilty of and so were a handful of other presidents, none of which were even considered for humiliation. The brilliant Republicans also were working against their own best interest. After the slaves took over the deck of the Ship of State in 1994 they, who had no idea how to navigate, steer or work the sails, proceeded to knife every able-bodied sailor they found on deck. Then they wondered why the ship wouldn't go where they wanted.

President Clinton was moving decisively toward the center, being the best Republican he knew how. He was not an ideologue, and was much more the pragmatist: it's more important to be President than it is to be liberal. At least then, within the process, he could have influence. That's a valid decision.

But in knifing Clinton along with Wright and his long-experienced crew, they ensured that what would follow was a more ideological Democratic leadership, unconcerned with governing and much more concerned with ruling. It is no accident that Obama said in one of his first week's speeches "under my rule....." He meant it. And I'm afraid the Republicans mean it too. Ideology will trump every attempt at good government. The next generation will have to sort it out, but my generation of retired hippies has blown it much worse than the generation that we protested so much about.

Clinton would have handled this much differently, especially with a close election threatening. He would immediately have come out talking tough border policies, taking away the Republicans' issue totally. At the same time he would have been meeting with Hispanic organizations to expedite the process of Mexican immigration into the US with a more streamlined and compassionate process. He would have gone to congress and Clinton had the ability to get a law passed granting amnesty to children born in this country, under the age of 30, not having been in any trouble, gainfully employed..... The issue would have been taken away from the Republicans and would now belong to Mr. Clinton. Thank them very much!:D

Obama shows no evidence of knowing how to use the reins of the horse he's riding. The horse is running wild and he's blaming the groomer, the one he bought the horse from, the bad ground the horse is standing on......... Clinton did none of that. He took the ground right out from under his opposition, straightened it out and learned to ride his horse all over what used to be their ground.

In spite of the impeachment foolishness, Clinton was smart enough to know which side of the toast held the butter. Why? It was because he had to survive as a Democrat in a conservative state. Do we have anybody running as a presidential candidate for one side who has had to learn to survive among the other side? Wouldn't that be the best choice, as evidenced by Clinton's presidency?

[Rockin Robbins]

Heated debate is fine, but please keep it civil.
Bah, all in good fun. Certainly nobody could take seriously the proposition that Bilge Rat is a chemical substance tending to cause looseness of the bowels any more than they would take seriously that he might really be a bilge rat. Real bilge rats were considered a delicacy by sailors lucky enough to catch them though! Yum!

No real insults are going to come from here. I apologize if anyone took my ex-lax comment as a true insult rather than just the colorful and potentially juicy figure of speech I meant it to be.

Here's Obama in 2011 speaking clearly and truthfully at a town hall meeting. It is a blueprint for what should follow. He was speaking before a Hispanic organization.
"America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job."

Shazzam~!! He copied me from above! Proof he has no principles, copying from an idiot like me.....:doh:

[Bilge_Rat]

Bah, all in good fun. Certainly nobody could take seriously the proposition that Bilge Rat is a chemical substance tending to cause looseness of the bowels any more than they would take seriously that he might really be a bilge rat. Real bilge rats were considered a delicacy by sailors lucky enough to catch them though! Yum!



Ya know RR, I use to respect you, but I see you are just a blabbering cretin.

[vienna]

This from someone highly touted to be the GOP Veep nominee:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/marco-rubio-says-come-u-illegally-had-111859436.html

Can't you just hear the twisting of the internals of the GOP Far Right?...

...

[Sailor Steve]

Bah, all in good fun.

Ya know RR, I use to respect you, but I see you are just a blabbering cretin.
If it really is all in good fun, then fine. If not, then both of you need to turn it down a notch.

[August]

You guys can quibble all you want but the fact remains that the impeachment charge was about lying on the witness stand. If he hadn't done that no impeachment. Not even for going on TV and self righteously wagging his finger in the face of the nation while he lied about having sex with "that woman".

[Rockin Robbins]

Ya know RR, I use to respect you, but I see you are just a blabbering cretin.
Well join the line! I'm not too worried about fans although as I said I do apologize if you took a colorful phrase as an insult. If you don't have anybody that doesn't respect you then you aren't standing for much. I still respect you so you have a ways to go.:D

At least you can explain your position in a clear manner that lends itself to valid criticism. Many state their positions in a way that leave you wondering just what they've said.:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

This from someone highly touted to be the GOP Veep nominee:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/marco-rubio-says-come-u-illegally-had-111859436.html

Can't you just hear the twisting of the internals of the GOP Far Right?...

...

Guys like our Marco Rubio (hope he tells 'em to take the VP slot and stick it) give you hope for the future. If the rest of the conservative crowd were like him, they'd sit the Prez down, tell him he's been a bad dog and let's see what kind of package we can put together that none of us is happy with but we can all live with. But Marco isn't a smoke and mirrors conservative, he's a REAL conservative who thinks about what he wants and doesn't do the baiting game. He doesn't follow the right wing, they better learn to follow him.

It's an election year. Nothing that makes any kind of rational sense is going to happen before November.... The Republicans, being too enlightened to take their own side in an argument, will make fools of themselves as usual and the Democrats will find the solution in bigger, more expensive government. We probably need a new cabinet position to fix this thing, or at least a new agency with a "Czar" with a cigar. Are Czars allowed to smoke a cigar these days?

[Bilge_Rat]

Well join the line! I'm not too worried about fans although as I said I do apologize if you took a colorful phrase as an insult. If you don't have anybody that doesn't respect you then you aren't standing for much. I still respect you so you have a ways to go.:D

At least you can explain your position in a clear manner that lends itself to valid criticism. Many state their positions in a way that leave you wondering just what they've said.:up:

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, and it would not be the first time, then I also take back my unfortunate choice of words.

SH4 fans should'nt let politics get in the way. I always look forward to your SH4 posts btw. :ping:

[CaptainMattJ.]

@ Capt Matt,
Doesn't Kali-fornia allow illegals to pay "in-state tuition?" So, say, if I wanted to go to a CA school, I would get charged out of state tuition. But if I was not a legal US citizen, I could get in state tuition.:up:
AFAIK, pretty much. In a short while, you may just get a hefty scholarship too.