Immigration

[dublinirish]

Liberals should LOVE this move by The Don. He's literally asking Congress for immigration reform... probably in exchange for a wall? Seems a small price to pay for #dreams.

The Don is coming to ND tomorrow. For the 2nd time. Dont think Obama ever came. Could be wrong. What a time to be alive that he will grace us with his presence.

President Barack Obama delivered the commencement address at University of Notre Dame on May 17, 2009

 

[NorthDakota]

President Barack Obama delivered the commencement address at University of Notre Dame on May 17, 2009

The state of ND...apologies

 

[dublinirish]

The state of ND...apologies

aha my bad

Wiki tells me

President Barack Obama visited the "Cannon Ball Flag Day Powwow" On Friday June 13, 2014

President Obama Speaks at the Cannon Ball Flag Day Celebration - PowWows.com - Native American Pow Wows

 

[woolybug25]

The Don is coming to ND tomorrow. For the 2nd time. Dont think Obama ever came. Could be wrong. What a time to be alive that he will grace us with his presence.

President Barack Obama visited the "Cannon Ball Flag Day Powwow" On Friday June 13, 2014

 

[NorthDakota]

aha my bad

Wiki tells me



President Obama Speaks at the Cannon Ball Flag Day Celebration - PowWows.com - Native American Pow Wows

I dont count the Rez. They are always quick to remind us that they are "sovereign nations."

Good find though! Gotta eat crow

 

[Legacy]

DREAM ACT 2017: Summary and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
JULY 24, 2017

On July 20, 2017, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Dream Act of 2017. It is a bipartisan bill that would provide a direct road to U.S. citizenship for people who are either undocumented, have DACA or temporary protected status (TPS), and who graduate from U.S. high schools and attend college, enter the workforce, or enlist in a military program.

 

[Legacy]

A Guide to S.744: Understanding the 2013 Senate Immigration Bill

Summary of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009e

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
S.2611

Issue Highlights: Principles for Immigration Reform (NY Immigration Coalition)

 

[drayer54]

Why are both sides so self-righteous in this argument?

Telling someone they have to leave the country they think of as home is a a very big deal, even if their parents came here illegally--especially when they have to return to a country they don't know and that is not nearly as well-off. This is even more true considering the behavior was condoned by almost everyone in authority for decades.

On the other hand, the rule of law is crucial. It's pointless to debate policy if you can just ignore the laws on the books. Comprehensive immigration reform is just a meaningless term if one side is committed to ignoring rules they don't like. And not everyone agrees that borders and immigration standards are cruel or inhumane per se. In fact, no one has ever argued this. Every country has always had them and enforced them as necessary. It's the basis of international law. Further, a policy that penalizes people (i.e., immigrants) that follow the rules is broken. And the idea that our politicians have a duty to American workers first is not racists or xenophopic. It's just common sense.

And the moral duty to welcome refugees is not the same as a commitment to open-borders.

I really liked this post and it captures my thoughts. What is moral vs what is right? But it surely isn't constitutional and it screams executive overreach.

The idea that a temporary order from Obama being repealed is so horrible is an example of what is wrong with our current state. DACA was implemented because congress failed to act and Obama wanted to make a move. Nowhere in the Constitution is it made ok for a POTUS to write law because the congress failed to act. The current environment of President's having no regard for the balance of power is flat out wrong and DACA should be destroyed asap.

I like how Trump gave 6 months to phase it out and give the Congress time to do it right. DACA was a band aid, not policy and should rightfully be cancelled. As should every other illegitmate executive overreach. That said, I don't think it is morally right to take kids out of the country like this. Pass the Dream Act and do it right.

 

[phgreek]

I really liked this post and it captures my thoughts. What is moral vs what is right? But it surely isn't constitutional and it screams executive overreach.

The idea that a temporary order from Obama being repealed is so horrible is an example of what is wrong with our current state. DACA was implemented because congress failed to act and Obama wanted to make a move. Nowhere in the Constitution is it made ok for a POTUS to write law because the congress failed to act. The current environment of President's having no regard for the balance of power is flat out wrong and DACA should be destroyed asap.

I like how Trump gave 6 months to phase it out and give the Congress time to do it right. DACA was a band aid, not policy and should rightfully be cancelled. As should every other illegitmate executive overreach. That said, I don't think it is morally right to take kids out of the country like this. Pass the Dream Act and do it right.

ditto

 

[connor_in]

I really liked this post and it captures my thoughts. What is moral vs what is right? But it surely isn't constitutional and it screams executive overreach.

The idea that a temporary order from Obama being repealed is so horrible is an example of what is wrong with our current state. DACA was implemented because congress failed to act and Obama wanted to make a move. Nowhere in the Constitution is it made ok for a POTUS to write law because the congress failed to act. The current environment of President's having no regard for the balance of power is flat out wrong and DACA should be destroyed asap.

I like how Trump gave 6 months to phase it out and give the Congress time to do it right. DACA was a band aid, not policy and should rightfully be cancelled. As should every other illegitmate executive overreach. That said, I don't think it is morally right to take kids out of the country like this. Pass the Dream Act and do it right.

Fantastic post!

You are correct that the EO was overreach by PBO, who acknowledged it himself over and over again. See video attached to this tweet:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MT <a href="https://twitter.com/BBUMH">@BBUMH</a> “Obama said Amnesty by EO, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DACA?src=hash">#DACA</a>, is Illegal, Unconstitutional, Unwise, Unfair, but he did it anyway.”<a href="https://t.co/LzT1FxIKoe">https://t.co/LzT1FxIKoe</a></p>— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/905286230560186368">September 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Make DACA law either as is or modified, but do it the correct way. I honestly think that it would get passed as there are more than enough on both sides that want this done and the way PDT (and his aides) has talked about it, he would seem to have no trouble signing it. Congress (the LEGISLATIVE branch) just needs to step up and do their job and not let the executive branch act as a king making law by proclamation (this goes for presidents from any party). There are places for EO's, but not for this.

 

[Cackalacky]

Wait...so are all EO overreach? Or just this one? I just want to be clear.

Because I remember the DREAM Act passed the House but failed in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster requiring 60 votes. This EO is as reasonable and bare bones as you can get. It is not by any means outlandish. Further it is at a minimum the moral and right thing to have put in place.

EO's are a part of the President's ability yes? Until Congress takes that away from the Office yes?

Philosophically are all laws moral? Are all Laws right? Which takes precedent... morality or lawfulness?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Official on admin conf call on what happens to Dreamer after losing status: "They would be like any other person in the country illegally."</p>— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/905083229933330434">September 5, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

Supreme Court’s Decision on Immigration Case Affects Millions of Unauthorized Immigrants
JUNE 22, 2016 (NY Times)

Tired of lawsuits and EOs. Congress, do your job.

 

[connor_in]

Fantastic post!

You are correct that the EO was overreach by PBO, who acknowledged it himself over and over again. See video attached to this tweet:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MT <a href="https://twitter.com/BBUMH">@BBUMH</a> “Obama said Amnesty by EO, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DACA?src=hash">#DACA</a>, is Illegal, Unconstitutional, Unwise, Unfair, but he did it anyway.”<a href="https://t.co/LzT1FxIKoe">https://t.co/LzT1FxIKoe</a></p>— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/905286230560186368">September 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Make DACA law either as is or modified, but do it the correct way. I honestly think that it would get passed as there are more than enough on both sides that want this done and the way PDT (and his aides) has talked about it, he would seem to have no trouble signing it. Congress (the LEGISLATIVE branch) just needs to step up and do their job and not let the executive branch act as a king making law by proclamation (this goes for presidents from any party). There are places for EO's, but not for this.

Wait...so are all EO overreach? Or just this one? I just want to be clear.

Because I remember the DREAM Act passed the House but failed in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster requiring 60 votes. This EO is as reasonable and bare bones as you can get. It is not by any means outlandish. Further it is at a minimum the moral and right thing to have put in place.

EO's are a part of the President's ability yes? Until Congress takes that away from the Office yes?

Philosophically are all laws moral? Are all Laws right? Which takes precedent... morality or lawfulness?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Official on admin conf call on what happens to Dreamer after losing status: "They would be like any other person in the country illegally."</p>— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/905083229933330434">September 5, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

.

 

[drayer54]

Wait...so are all EO overreach? Or just this one? I just want to be clear.

Because I remember the DREAM Act passed the House but failed in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster requiring 60 votes. This EO is as reasonable and bare bones as you can get. It is not by any means outlandish. Further it is at a minimum the moral and right thing to have put in place.

EO's are a part of the President's ability yes? Until Congress takes that away from the Office yes?

Philosophically are all laws moral? Are all Laws right? Which takes precedent... morality or lawfulness?

Passing an executive order because the congress fails to give you what you want is about as solid of an example as can be of abusing executive orders. I don't care what party is where, that is wrong and I'll oppose it everytime.

The system of checks and balances must be used or we are eroding the barriers in place that prevent dictators over free people. Might seem dramatic, but it is why we have balances. It also why elections matter so much and people freak out so much over the POTUS swings. Stability in our country will only happen when our policies don't swing with the pendelum and our executive branch is weakened back to where it was designed in the Constitution.

 

[Legacy]

Not much difference between Obama and Trump with the message that Congress needs to act. Not going to post the links to the lawsuits filed yesterday.

Regardless, some fact-checking on the AG's statements:
Fact-checking Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the DACA immigration program (Politifact)

This AG thinks DACA has inflicted on our country with nothing less than lives lost, Constitution in peril, our freedoms sacrificed, jobs taken away, economy in peril, lawlessness, protection of our communities and taxpayers forfeited.

A responsible Congress should only pass the RAISE Act.

 

[connor_in]

Passing an executive order because the congress fails to give you what you want is about as solid of an example as can be of abusing executive orders. I don't care what party is where, that is wrong and I'll oppose it everytime.

The system of checks and balances must be used or we are eroding the barriers in place that prevent dictators over free people. Might seem dramatic, but it is why we have balances. It also why elections matter so much and people freak out so much over the POTUS swings. Stability in our country will only happen when our policies don't swing with the pendelum and our executive branch is weakened back to where it was designed in the Constitution.

 

[Legacy]

Comprehensive Immigration Act, 2013

Comprehensive Immigration Act, 2013

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 . (Wiki)

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the bill in April 2013.[2] The bill was voted out of Committee on May 21, 2013 and was placed on the Senate calendar.[3] On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill on 68-32 margin. The bill was not considered by United States House of Representatives and died in the 113th Congress.

If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also advances talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas have been proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers.[4] It also proposes new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also includes a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repeals the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this reform bill would have reduced the U.S. fiscal deficit by US$197 billion over the next ten years and by $700 billion by 2033.[5] Its report also states that, if this bill becomes law, U.S. wages would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 than under current law.[6] The Social Security Administration says that this bill, if it becomes law, would help add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while costing only $33 billion.

 

[Cackalacky]

Passing an executive order because the congress fails to give you what you want is about as solid of an example as can be of abusing executive orders. I don't care what party is where, that is wrong and I'll oppose it everytime.

The system of checks and balances must be used or we are eroding the barriers in place that prevent dictators over free people. Might seem dramatic, but it is why we have balances. It also why elections matter so much and people freak out so much over the POTUS swings. Stability in our country will only happen when our policies don't swing with the pendelum and our executive branch is weakened back to where it was designed in the Constitution.

As to the bolded, it is not always getting what you want. Especially lately, partisan politics are wreaking havoc on peoples lives. Especially when your opposition Party has publicly stated that they will oppose everything you want to do as a politcal stance (see McConnell to Obama). What is the properly elected leader to do on important issues when facing such obstruction?

It is a last ditch effort to solve a problem that the Congress wont or refuses to. IIRC racial integration in the armed services and desegregation were both EO's. Pretty sure The Emancipation Proclamation was as well.

EO's can be challenged as unconstitutional if it exceeds the powers granted to the Executive.

 

[wizards8507]

The more I read about this, the more I think elected officials on all three sides (Left, Right, and Trump) are all directly opposed to their bases on this issue.

Trump's base hates DACA, not just because of executive overreach but because they actually want to deport the dreamers. This is in direct contrast to Trump, who's perfectly fine with DACA as long as he can use it as leverage in a negotiation to get the Trump wall built. The wall will probably be enough to dupe the average Trump fan into ignoring the fact that their Maga King just passed an amnesty bill, but prominent Trump defenders like Ann Coulter are speaking up against it.

Congressional Republicans love DACA or any type of amnesty because they're following the 2012 election autopsy written by the RNC under Reince Priebus. They want to punt on immigration so that it's no longer a campaign issue. They don't like the fact that they have to run a "mean spirited" campaign to get through Republican primaries just to have Democrats use all of that material against them in the general election. But Congressional Republicans are also terrified that Trump wins the PR battle against them. If Trump maintains the illusion that he's strong on immigration while the GOP Congress passes amnesty, you're going to see a wave of Trumpian primary challengers to the GOP establishment.

Meanwhile, elected Democrats are terrified that Republicans are going to steal this campaign issue out from under them. If a "compassionate" comprehensive immigration bill is passed by the GOP, that takes away a major (possibly the primary) campaign issue for 2018 and 2020. So you have elected Democrats secretly hoping that amnesty fails while the Democrat base is absolutely all in on amnesty as the greatest, most compassionate thing ever.

To recap:

Trump loves amnesty but Trump voters hate it.
The GOP loves amnesty but they're afraid of Trump voters.
The Democrats base loves amnesty but their elected officials won't work with Trump to pass it.

 

[Domina Nostra]

As to the bolded, it is not always getting what you want. Especially lately, partisan politics are wreaking havoc on peoples lives. Especially when your opposition Party has publicly stated that they will oppose everything you want to do as a politcal stance (see McConnell to Obama). What is the properly elected leader to do on important issues when facing such obstruction?

It is a last ditch effort to solve a problem that the Congress wont or refuses to. IIRC racial integration in the armed services and desegregation were both EO's. Pretty sure The Emancipation Proclamation was as well.

EO's can be challenged as unconstitutional if it exceeds the powers granted to the Executive.

Obama wasn't the only one elected. Congress was elected to. He was elected to execute the laws. They were elected to pass laws.

And an executive can't do something that he knows is beyond his authority and then just tell everyone to work it out in the courts. That's an abuse of power in the plainest sense.

 

[Wild Bill]

The more I read about this, the more I think elected officials on all three sides (Left, Right, and Trump) are all directly opposed to their bases on this issue.

Trump's base hates DACA, not just because of executive overreach but because they actually want to deport the dreamers. This is in direct contrast to Trump, who's perfectly fine with DACA as long as he can use it as leverage in a negotiation to get the Trump wall built. The wall will probably be enough to dupe the average Trump fan into ignoring the fact that their Maga King just passed an amnesty bill, but prominent Trump defenders like Ann Coulter are speaking up against it.

Congressional Republicans love DACA or any type of amnesty because they're following the 2012 election autopsy written by the RNC under Reince Priebus. They want to punt on immigration so that it's no longer a campaign issue. They don't like the fact that they have to run a "mean spirited" campaign to get through Republican primaries just to have Democrats use all of that material against them in the general election. But Congressional Republicans are also terrified that Trump wins the PR battle against them. If Trump maintains the illusion that he's strong on immigration while the GOP Congress passes amnesty, you're going to see a wave of Trumpian primary challengers to the GOP establishment.

Meanwhile, elected Democrats are terrified that Republicans are going to steal this campaign issue out from under them. If a "compassionate" comprehensive immigration bill is passed by the GOP, that takes away a major (possibly the primary) campaign issue for 2018 and 2020. So you have elected Democrats secretly hoping that amnesty fails while the Democrat base is absolutely all in on amnesty as the greatest, most compassionate thing ever.

To recap:

Trump loves amnesty but Trump voters hate it.
The GOP loves amnesty but they're afraid of Trump voters.
The Democrats base loves amnesty but their elected officials won't work with Trump to pass it.

Compassion has nothing to do with it.

The GOP wants to punt bc their donors want open borders and cheap labor. They don't give a shit about an immigrants well being and would let them live in the shadows from now until the end of time.

Democrats used to punt to make it a campaign issue but now they'd probably accept an amnesty agreement with open arms for two reasons: they're losing white working class voters in huge numbers bc of this issue and amnesty gives them millions of new voters. They have zero compassion for them. If 8/10 immigrants voted R rather than D, the only issue democrats would be addressing is whether they'll deport them by air, land, or sea.

 

[Cackalacky]

Obama wasn't the only one elected. Congress was elected to. He was elected to execute the laws. They were elected to pass laws.

And an executive can't do something that he knows is beyond his authority and then just tell everyone to work it out in the courts. That's an abuse of power in the plainest sense.

EOs are not beyond his authority. There isnt a check on EOs except to the extent they are unconstitutional.

Oh and Congress is just fine at passing its own unconstitutional laws. Its not always overreach.
Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

If you think about sensible EOs are sometimes foundations for actual laws like the 13th Amendment was based off the Emancipation Proclamation.

Sensible amnesty laws could draw upon the DACA EO as it is a most reasonable stop gap in response to a do nothing Obstructionist Congress. Further it was a morally just action to take, unlike the GOP trying to bargain the DACA peoples livlihood for funding to build the wall.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Compassion has nothing to do with it.

The GOP wants to punt bc their donors want open borders and cheap labor. They don't give a shit about an immigrants well being and would let them live in the shadows from now until the end of time.

Democrats used to punt to make it a campaign issue but now they'd probably accept an amnesty agreement with open arms for two reasons: they're losing white working class voters in huge numbers bc of this issue and amnesty gives them millions of new voters. They have zero compassion for them. If 8/10 immigrants voted R rather than D, the only issue democrats would be addressing is whether they'll deport them by air, land, or sea.

No, it doesn't. Amnesty does not equal citizenship. It allows legal permanent residence, which is not naturalization.

Democrats choose amnesty and similar measures because these 12,000,000 people have been here for years and are already vital members of our economy and communities. There is no other sensible choice, which is why Ronald Reagan of all people did it in the 1980s. Today's Democratic Party supports a Ronald Reagan move, but Republicans firmly reject the idea....and the Democrats are supposedly the party that went off a cliff??

86% of illegal immigrants have been here for more than five years, and a whooping 66% of them have been here for a decade or more. So they're really not going anywhere. The glee with which Right-leaning chatterboxes have supported this sociopathic move makes me think they'd blindly support a mass deportation of all 12,000,000 illegals regardless of the economic and humanitarian consequences. Such a move would be the largest mass deportation of people since the Holocaust, and I don't like policies that can be easily compared to the Holocaust.

 

[drayer54]

As to the bolded, it is not always getting what you want. Especially lately, partisan politics are wreaking havoc on peoples lives. Especially when your opposition Party has publicly stated that they will oppose everything you want to do as a politcal stance (see McConnell to Obama). What is the properly elected leader to do on important issues when facing such obstruction?.

It really is simple. If something is really wreaking havoc on peoples lives, then the Congress will pass a bill to do something. Maybe they fix it, maybe not... Either way, every power is supposed to have checks and balances. By allowing the Congress to draft laws, the Judiciary to review laws, and the POTUS to enforce them, we have that appropriate blend and one man doesn't have too much power.

This is where Executive overreach comes in. Overreach and excessive power happen when EO's are used to bypass the legislative branch and what seems to be even worse now, more and more government agencies enforcing their own agenda while completely bypassing Congress. While I agree, that Congress blows the goats, it isn't a newfound obligation to bypass them by the POTUS. Hence the outrage we've seen this year and years prior when people see things they hate being pushed through by one man.

The perceived importance or emergency level of an action do not allow it to circumvent our style of government. My only hope is that both sides through unpopular POTUS's see that our Executive branch is too strong. It's a longshot when most people now don't really know that we have an Executive branch.

Progress and change are supposed to be slow. But the new 24/7 news cycle and 4-year election cycles demand more action and the government has fattened up so badly that here we are.

 

[Wild Bill]

No, it doesn't. Amnesty does not equal citizenship. It allows legal permanent residence, which is not naturalization.

Democrats choose amnesty and similar measures because these 12,000,000 people have been here for years and are already vital members of our economy and communities. There is no other sensible choice, which is why Ronald Reagan of all people did it in the 1980s. Today's Democratic Party supports a Ronald Reagan move, but Republicans firmly reject the idea....and the Democrats are supposedly the party that went off a cliff??

86% of illegal immigrants have been here for more than five years, and a whooping 66% of them have been here for a decade or more. So they're really not going anywhere. The glee with which Right-leaning chatterboxes have supported this sociopathic move makes me think they'd blindly support a mass deportation of all 12,000,000 illegals regardless of the economic and humanitarian consequences. Such a move would be the largest mass deportation of people since the Holocaust, and I don't like policies that can be easily compared to the Holocaust.

Is this where I'm supposed to naively believe once they're given legal status they won't be applying for citizenship and voting Democrat the rest of their lives?

 

[phgreek]

EOs are not beyond his authority. There isnt a check on EOs except to the extent they are unconstitutional.

I've seen Feinsein acknowledge DACA is wrong legally.

...BTW, can you post here a copy of or link to the actual EO....

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've seen Feinsein acknowledge DACA is wrong legally.

Where did you see that?

Chuck Todd asked if it was on "legal shaky ground" and she responded "It is. That's why we need to pass a law, and we should do it."

That is not acknowledging that DACA is "wrong legally" in her opinion.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Is this where I'm supposed to naively believe once they're given legal status they won't be applying for citizenship and voting Democrat the rest of their lives?

It took 15 years for just 1/3 of the 1986 amnesty bunch to become naturalized. So, let's say 1/3 of 12 million is four million new citizens by 2032. Oh no!

Congress could easily make a stipulation that people who accept amnesty are permanently ineligible for citizenship. Although what would be the fucking point, they're members of communities. It is and would continue to be, bizarre at the local levels.

One could easily argue that the reason Puerto Rico is in perpetual third world hell is that Republicans are afraid of giving American citizens the right to vote because they know they wouldn't vote Republican. This game goes around and around.

 

[phgreek]

Where did you see that?

Chuck Todd asked if it was on "legal shaky ground" and she responded "It is. That's why we need to pass a law, and we should do it."

That is not acknowledging that DACA is "wrong legally" in her opinion.

sorry...I take the two to generally mean the same thing when uttered from an ultra partisan....are you saying you left that interview thinking she thought it was ok? Her body language and words told me she knows it was wrong....but to each his own.

...can you post a link to the actual EO???

 

[Buster Bluth]

sorry...I take the two to generally mean the same thing when uttered from an ultra partisan....are you saying you left that interview thinking she thought it was ok? Her body language and words told me she knows it was wrong....but to each his own.

They don't mean the same thing. It's like saying you voted for Obamacare but when its requirement to buy health insurance is up in the court system you say it's "too close to call" because courts can be tough to predict.

DACA is on legal shaky ground because 1) the President has the authority to enforce law, yet 2) doesn't create law, and 3) has limited resources (ie funding), so 4) can he prioritize within the law the use of said resources (eg letting kids go by and focusing on threats)?

You know what else is on legal shaky ground? Legal marijuana. Oh well, it's still an improvement over a Congress that can't do anything.

...can you post a link to the actual EO???

Find it yourself?