Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[thegreekdog]

NS, the memo is not binding, it mentions the discretion of operatives multiple times, is not permanent, and all that other nonsense. It even says in the memo that the rules spelled out are not guaranteed (at the discretion of officer), and various other caveats are included. You, and other conservatives, are seizing on anything you can out of hatred of Obama, Mexicans, and the constitution, while uncleverly parroting mantras about DICTATORIALISM VS CONSTARTATIONS! It's legal in every sense of the word. If you want that changed, that's your prerogative, but your lies and distortions are disgusting.

What?

[Phatscotty]

That there is a poor sport and a sore loser

[thegreekdog]

Well, there are two separate discussions going on here.

Discussion #1 - Is it hypocritical for Republicans or Democrats to accuse the other party's president of legislating from the executive branch? Yes, it is. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have done this sort of thing since Lincoln.

Discussion #2 - Is it hypocritical for a Republican to accuse President Obama of not only not enforcing the existing law, but, without the approval of Congress, changing the existing law? No, it's not.

[Phatscotty]

Well, there are two separate discussions going on here.

Discussion #1 - Is it hypocritical for Republicans or Democrats to accuse the other party's president of legislating from the executive branch? Yes, it is. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have done this sort of thing since Lincoln.

Discussion #2 - Is it hypocritical for a Republican to accuse President Obama of not only not enforcing the existing law, but, without the approval of Congress, changing the existing law? No, it's not.

glad I am 2.

[thegreekdog]

Well, there are two separate discussions going on here.

Discussion #1 - Is it hypocritical for Republicans or Democrats to accuse the other party's president of legislating from the executive branch? Yes, it is. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have done this sort of thing since Lincoln.

Discussion #2 - Is it hypocritical for a Republican to accuse President Obama of not only not enforcing the existing law, but, without the approval of Congress, changing the existing law? No, it's not.

glad I am 2.

Correct. As I posted on page 1, this is not about the executive branch creating policy or law (which I don't think it should do), but about the executive branch contravening existing law. A similar example would be if a Republican president unilaterally lowered the taxes on corporations and told the IRS to enforce his lower tax, not the higher tax rate passed by Congress.

I'm less concerned about the issue and much more concerned about the highly dangerous precedent.

[Phatscotty]

Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

It wasn't even an executive order. It was a memo instructing homeland security as to who to deport and who not to deport.

Oh, lol. That's what I get for getting my news from Fox news and The Blaze. So it is actually a matter of prosecutorial discretion, which has even more judicial precedence, and is super legal. It turns out that the memo explicitly states that it is not establishing or changing any laws, but is only affecting the focus of the DHS encouraging them to prosecute adult law breakers rather than those who came with their family as children.

Y'all are some racist motherfuckers using dictatorial hyperbole and coercion to inflict your skewed view of the Constitution on the unwilling people of America. If you guys had a conscience, I would tell you that you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Well then Obama is all the things you are calling Night Strike, and me, and whoever else, because we are only saying what Obama has said in the past. Obama said it and we say it.....because it's the truth.

Sorry about your little butt

[Neoteny]

In before more lies, exaggerations, and fear-mongering about an imagined dictator under the deluded guise of PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION despite the fact that the constitutionality of the move has already been determined.

Of course, you are aware that Obama made the same argument himself that you are now calling lies and exaggerations and fear mongering? Are you aware?

I'm not aware because I didn't watch the video. I didn't watch the video because I don't actually care. I don't actually care because Obama's been saying one thing and doing another since he got elected (and before). I know you think everyone that is against you deifies Obama and whatnot, but that's your simplicity, not mine. So, we are in agreement that Obama, like Romney, Paul, Bush, whoever else, is a hypocrite. Where does that get us on the discussion on whether this action is illegal?

Well, there are two separate discussions going on here.

Discussion #1 - Is it hypocritical for Republicans or Democrats to accuse the other party's president of legislating from the executive branch? Yes, it is. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have done this sort of thing since Lincoln.

Discussion #2 - Is it hypocritical for a Republican to accuse President Obama of not only not enforcing the existing law, but, without the approval of Congress, changing the existing law? No, it's not.

Oh, wait, we're apparently not having that discussion. Instead we're just calling everyone hypocrites, rather than trying to get down to the legality of the issue. I'm sorry I don't take your every word as complete truth, Greek, but I'm entirely unconvinced that this is illegal based on you shining down from the heavens with your murky, liquid Tony Jay voice mumbling about separation of powers and how this is "most assuredly illegal." I am completely dumbfounded that Night Strike is the only conservative in this thread that has actually addressed 1) my initial misconceptions about the issue, and 2) the actual issue itself. Presidential hypocrisy is shitty, but is, as an issue, completely uninteresting. From what I've seen from more reasonable conservatives, they are fully convinced that this is ethically wrong, but see the legality of the issue to be murky, and incredibly difficult to prosecute. One put it something along the lines of "immigration and prosecutorial discretion laws are vague enough to drive a bus through, and Obama is driving a bus through them." Do I think this violates the spirit of the Constitution? Probably so. Do I think it violates the letter of the constitution? No, because, despite all of the assertions to the contrary, this is not an on the books law. It is a memo describing prioritization of use for limited resources. Do I think it is illegal under any other federal restriction? Not yet, because my limited research indicates quite a bit of precedent about this sort of thing.

But, hey, we're just piling on about hypocrisy, right? That's what we've been talking about? I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite for thinking this law is illegal. I'm trying to figure out how you or anyone else justifies calling it illegal, since prosecutorial discretion has a history of use, and how this qualifies as changing or creating law, since the memo acknowledges the illegality of these people, reinforces that a case by case application shoud be upheld for the purpose of prosecutorial discretion, and lists guidelines for determining low priority individuals for that reason. The law has not been changed. The executive branch has not legislated anything. It is enforcing the law in a manner that it feels minimizes risk to the American people. Please explain to me how this is illegal. Even using "spirit of the constitution" language (because I agree with that) would be ok. But all most of you have done is mention offhand how it's obviously illegal, and how Obama is a hypocrite. The latter is likely, but the former is much less clear than you're making it out to be.

Well then Obama is all the things you are calling Night Strike, and me, and whoever else, because we are only saying what Obama has said in the past. Obama said it and we say it.....because it's the truth.

Sorry about your little butt

Well, you still seem to be on about Obama. Which is fine, racist. I expect it from you. But if you want to continue committing the fallacy of hyperbolically describing my position as the deification of a politician, then get it straight: Stewart Alexander is the only person with the ideas, ability, and fortitude to SAVE AMERICA.

[Night Strike]

This issue is much more than typical hypocrisy. It has to do with the unconstitutional modification and failure to carry out a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous president. That is beyond the hypocrisy seen in campaign speeches vs actual policies.

[Neoteny]

This issue is much more than typical hypocrisy. It has to do with the unconstitutional modification and failure to carry out a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous president. That is beyond the hypocrisy seen in campaign speeches vs actual policies.

The bill absolutely has not been modified. The people that meet the criteria are still illegal. They will likely be deported when they no longer meet the criteria. Many who do meet the criteria can and will be deported. The criteria are a reference point for low-risk individuals for whom prosecutorial discretion might be appropriate. There will be plenty of conservatives making the decision to deport these individuals. The memo is a political fastball. I reckon Obama is smirking smugly and dancing around the Oval Office in his tighty-whities right now. But I'm still unconvinced that this is illegal in the executive powers discussion. I am convinced that you just don't like how the bill is being enforced, and using the tenuous argument about legality is the only recourse available.

[Night Strike]

This issue is much more than typical hypocrisy. It has to do with the unconstitutional modification and failure to carry out a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous president. That is beyond the hypocrisy seen in campaign speeches vs actual policies.

The bill absolutely has not been modified. The people that meet the criteria are still illegal. They will likely be deported when they no longer meet the criteria. Many who do meet the criteria can and will be deported. The criteria are a reference point for low-risk individuals for whom prosecutorial discretion might be appropriate. There will be plenty of conservatives making the decision to deport these individuals. The memo is a political fastball. I reckon Obama is smirking smugly and dancing around the Oval Office in his tighty-whities right now. But I'm still unconvinced that this is illegal in the executive powers discussion. I am convinced that you just don't like how the bill is being enforced, and using the tenuous argument about legality is the only recourse available.

Except the law won't be enforced, which is the entire discussion on this topic. The executive branch does not have the authority to decide which laws it will or will not enforce. If Obama doesn't want to enforce a law, he either has to get Congress to repeal the law or resign from the Office of the President. Making blanket changes on how the law will be carried out and who actually falls under that law is not under his job description.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, wait, we're apparently not having that discussion. Instead we're just calling everyone hypocrites, rather than trying to get down to the legality of the issue. I'm sorry I don't take your every word as complete truth, Greek, but I'm entirely unconvinced that this is illegal based on you shining down from the heavens with your murky, liquid Tony Jay voice mumbling about separation of powers and how this is "most assuredly illegal." I am completely dumbfounded that Night Strike is the only conservative in this thread that has actually addressed 1) my initial misconceptions about the issue, and 2) the actual issue itself. Presidential hypocrisy is shitty, but is, as an issue, completely uninteresting. From what I've seen from more reasonable conservatives, they are fully convinced that this is ethically wrong, but see the legality of the issue to be murky, and incredibly difficult to prosecute. One put it something along the lines of "immigration and prosecutorial discretion laws are vague enough to drive a bus through, and Obama is driving a bus through them." Do I think this violates the spirit of the Constitution? Probably so. Do I think it violates the letter of the constitution? No, because, despite all of the assertions to the contrary, this is not an on the books law. It is a memo describing prioritization of use for limited resources. Do I think it is illegal under any other federal restriction? Not yet, because my limited research indicates quite a bit of precedent about this sort of thing.

But, hey, we're just piling on about hypocrisy, right? That's what we've been talking about? I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite for thinking this law is illegal. I'm trying to figure out how you or anyone else justifies calling it illegal, since prosecutorial discretion has a history of use, and how this qualifies as changing or creating law, since the memo acknowledges the illegality of these people, reinforces that a case by case application shoud be upheld for the purpose of prosecutorial discretion, and lists guidelines for determining low priority individuals for that reason. The law has not been changed. The executive branch has not legislated anything. It is enforcing the law in a manner that it feels minimizes risk to the American people. Please explain to me how this is illegal. Even using "spirit of the constitution" language (because I agree with that) would be ok. But all most of you have done is mention offhand how it's obviously illegal, and how Obama is a hypocrite. The latter is likely, but the former is much less clear than you're making it out to be.

I'm actually not accusing the president of being a hypocrit. So we can take that off the table (at least as it relates to my argument). I am calling Phatscotty and Night Strike hypocrits, as well as anyone who defends the president's activities who also criticized our prior president's activities. For purposes of politics, this sort of hypocrisy seems to be par for the course and does not overly concern me with respect to this particular issue.

What I am questioning is the following scenario: ICE or local police officers arrest someone with the suspiscion that the person is an illegal immigrant. The law indicates that once that arrest takes place, the person should be prosecuted. If the person is let go without arrest or without prosecution, this appears to be a violation of the law. It is definitely enforcement of the law that is the question, but this seems, at least to me, to be a different animal.

And, as an additional caveat that I've made a number of times, I support what the president has done. I think it's a good step in the right direction with respect to illegal immigration.

[Neoteny]

@NS

The law will be enforced. They're going to play it off as a matter of resources, I'm sure, where they are specifically focusing on "riskier" illegals, as opposed to people who were brought here as children, and don't know any other home. It will still be enforced, it's just that you expect blanket deportations, which isn't unreasonable, I guess, but also isn't realistic. People have been making this decision locally since the bill went into effect. One might even applaud it for trying to offer some consistency with regard to enforcing it. It just that it comes from a president you don't particularly care for.

@TGD

Actually, by my reading of the memo, the cases would be fully prosecuted until the actual deportation. At that point, discretion is used to determine if deportation can/should be deferred. I don't know if historically PD has been extended that far into the proceeding, but that might be a valid place to try to fight this memo. But the person will go through the full legal proceeding, with the punishment being temporarily deferred for low risk individuals. I don't know if that affects your stance.

[thegreekdog]

@TGD

Actually, by my reading of the memo, the cases would be fully prosecuted until the actual deportation. At that point, discretion is used to determine if deportation can/should be deferred. I don't know if historically PD has been extended that far into the proceeding, but that might be a valid place to try to fight this memo. But the person will go through the full legal proceeding, with the punishment being temporarily deferred for low risk individuals. I don't know if that affects your stance.

I need to read the document again. If you've interpreted correctly, since that's what happens in normal cases (i.e. in a regular ole criminal case), that appears to be an appropriate use of executive branch power.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, wait, we're apparently not having that discussion. Instead we're just calling everyone hypocrites, rather than trying to get down to the legality of the issue. I'm sorry I don't take your every word as complete truth, Greek, but I'm entirely unconvinced that this is illegal based on you shining down from the heavens with your murky, liquid Tony Jay voice mumbling about separation of powers and how this is "most assuredly illegal." I am completely dumbfounded that Night Strike is the only conservative in this thread that has actually addressed 1) my initial misconceptions about the issue, and 2) the actual issue itself. Presidential hypocrisy is shitty, but is, as an issue, completely uninteresting. From what I've seen from more reasonable conservatives, they are fully convinced that this is ethically wrong, but see the legality of the issue to be murky, and incredibly difficult to prosecute. One put it something along the lines of "immigration and prosecutorial discretion laws are vague enough to drive a bus through, and Obama is driving a bus through them." Do I think this violates the spirit of the Constitution? Probably so. Do I think it violates the letter of the constitution? No, because, despite all of the assertions to the contrary, this is not an on the books law. It is a memo describing prioritization of use for limited resources. Do I think it is illegal under any other federal restriction? Not yet, because my limited research indicates quite a bit of precedent about this sort of thing.

But, hey, we're just piling on about hypocrisy, right? That's what we've been talking about? I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite for thinking this law is illegal. I'm trying to figure out how you or anyone else justifies calling it illegal, since prosecutorial discretion has a history of use, and how this qualifies as changing or creating law, since the memo acknowledges the illegality of these people, reinforces that a case by case application shoud be upheld for the purpose of prosecutorial discretion, and lists guidelines for determining low priority individuals for that reason. The law has not been changed. The executive branch has not legislated anything. It is enforcing the law in a manner that it feels minimizes risk to the American people. Please explain to me how this is illegal. Even using "spirit of the constitution" language (because I agree with that) would be ok. But all most of you have done is mention offhand how it's obviously illegal, and how Obama is a hypocrite. The latter is likely, but the former is much less clear than you're making it out to be.

I'm actually not accusing the president of being a hypocrit. So we can take that off the table (at least as it relates to my argument). I am calling Phatscotty and Night Strike hypocrits, as well as anyone who defends the president's activities who also criticized our prior president's activities. For purposes of politics, this sort of hypocrisy seems to be par for the course and does not overly concern me with respect to this particular issue.

What I am questioning is the following scenario: ICE or local police officers arrest someone with the suspiscion that the person is an illegal immigrant. The law indicates that once that arrest takes place, the person should be prosecuted. If the person is let go without arrest or without prosecution, this appears to be a violation of the law. It is definitely enforcement of the law that is the question, but this seems, at least to me, to be a different animal.

And, as an additional caveat that I've made a number of times, I support what the president has done. I think it's a good step in the right direction with respect to illegal immigration.

what the hell is up your ass man? I'm not defending Obama's activities! I'm not even sure what the previous president did in regards to this issue, so that aint me x2. Holy shit, are you trolling me?

I was arguing #2

[Woodruff]

Oh, wait, we're apparently not having that discussion. Instead we're just calling everyone hypocrites, rather than trying to get down to the legality of the issue. I'm sorry I don't take your every word as complete truth, Greek, but I'm entirely unconvinced that this is illegal based on you shining down from the heavens with your murky, liquid Tony Jay voice mumbling about separation of powers and how this is "most assuredly illegal." I am completely dumbfounded that Night Strike is the only conservative in this thread that has actually addressed 1) my initial misconceptions about the issue, and 2) the actual issue itself. Presidential hypocrisy is shitty, but is, as an issue, completely uninteresting. From what I've seen from more reasonable conservatives, they are fully convinced that this is ethically wrong, but see the legality of the issue to be murky, and incredibly difficult to prosecute. One put it something along the lines of "immigration and prosecutorial discretion laws are vague enough to drive a bus through, and Obama is driving a bus through them." Do I think this violates the spirit of the Constitution? Probably so. Do I think it violates the letter of the constitution? No, because, despite all of the assertions to the contrary, this is not an on the books law. It is a memo describing prioritization of use for limited resources. Do I think it is illegal under any other federal restriction? Not yet, because my limited research indicates quite a bit of precedent about this sort of thing.

But, hey, we're just piling on about hypocrisy, right? That's what we've been talking about? I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite for thinking this law is illegal. I'm trying to figure out how you or anyone else justifies calling it illegal, since prosecutorial discretion has a history of use, and how this qualifies as changing or creating law, since the memo acknowledges the illegality of these people, reinforces that a case by case application shoud be upheld for the purpose of prosecutorial discretion, and lists guidelines for determining low priority individuals for that reason. The law has not been changed. The executive branch has not legislated anything. It is enforcing the law in a manner that it feels minimizes risk to the American people. Please explain to me how this is illegal. Even using "spirit of the constitution" language (because I agree with that) would be ok. But all most of you have done is mention offhand how it's obviously illegal, and how Obama is a hypocrite. The latter is likely, but the former is much less clear than you're making it out to be.

I'm actually not accusing the president of being a hypocrit. So we can take that off the table (at least as it relates to my argument). I am calling Phatscotty and Night Strike hypocrits, as well as anyone who defends the president's activities who also criticized our prior president's activities. For purposes of politics, this sort of hypocrisy seems to be par for the course and does not overly concern me with respect to this particular issue.

What I am questioning is the following scenario: ICE or local police officers arrest someone with the suspiscion that the person is an illegal immigrant. The law indicates that once that arrest takes place, the person should be prosecuted. If the person is let go without arrest or without prosecution, this appears to be a violation of the law. It is definitely enforcement of the law that is the question, but this seems, at least to me, to be a different animal.

And, as an additional caveat that I've made a number of times, I support what the president has done. I think it's a good step in the right direction with respect to illegal immigration.

what the hell is up your ass man? I'm not defending Obama's activities! I'm not even sure what the previous president did in regards to this issue, so that aint me x2. Holy shit, are you trolling me?

I was arguing #2

He wasn't saying that you were defending the President (he'd have to be insane to think that). He was simply pointing out what is plainly obvious to everyone.

[thegreekdog]

what the hell is up your ass man? I'm not defending Obama's activities! I'm not even sure what the previous president did in regards to this issue, so that aint me x2. Holy shit, are you trolling me?

I was arguing #2

Okay. Republicans getting up in arms about unrestrained executive power is hypocritical. That's all I'm saying.

[Phatscotty]

what the hell is up your ass man? I'm not defending Obama's activities! I'm not even sure what the previous president did in regards to this issue, so that aint me x2. Holy shit, are you trolling me?

I was arguing #2

Okay. Republicans getting up in arms about unrestrained executive power is hypocritical. That's all I'm saying.

Well, I am just an American who is uia about the president bypassing Congress, and straight up saying he's not going to enforce the law of the land, which is his freakin job! This isn't the first time either...We don't vote to send members to Congress to be irrelevant. It's an American position. What party it is or I am or they are does not matter.

[Neoteny]

I sort of feel like the old-fashioned American tradition of informed citizenry should be something toward which you strive.

[Phatscotty]

I sort of feel like the old-fashioned American tradition of informed citizenry should be something toward which you strive.

You didn't mention skin color....is everything okay?

I will strive to be informed.
Thanx

[Neoteny]

Racist.

[Woodruff]

I sort of feel like the old-fashioned American tradition of informed citizenry should be something toward which you strive.

You didn't mention skin color....is everything okay?

I will strive to be informed.
Thanx

That should be a fun change of pace!

[john9blue]

I sort of feel like the old-fashioned American tradition of informed citizenry should be something toward which you strive.

You didn't mention skin color....is everything okay?

I will strive to be informed.
Thanx

That should be a fun change of pace!

i agree, these conversations will be a lot smoother when people stop playing the race card.

[Neoteny]

We must mean two different things by "race card." You see, to me, "playing the race card" means using race or racial tension to gain political or personal advantage, or, as closely applicable as possible to a forum, declaring racism in the place of an argument. I think, when you racists talk about "the race card," you mean just calling out racism in general. See, I will often supplement my arguments with accusations (reminders, really, at this point) of racism, but there is usually (perhaps not always, when I'm feeling lazy) some sort of actual discussion that goes along with it. Bigot.

[john9blue]

We must mean two different things by "race card." You see, to me, "playing the race card" means using race or racial tension to gain political or personal advantage, or, as closely applicable as possible to a forum, declaring racism in the place of an argument. I think, when you racists

almost stopped reading here. the hypocrisy is astounding.

show me where i have said something racist.

[Neoteny]

From my card catalogue of times I thought john was racist.

Tbh though, you do give off that American History X vibe.

Lol, forgot to put the actual link.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=111030&p=2488727&hilit=racist#p2488727