Immigration

C

Cackalacky

Guest
phgreek said:
I've seen Feinsein acknowledge DACA is wrong legally.

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

"Shaky ground".

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

It began as a enforcment issue memo issued by DHS. It is my understanding this memo was issued at the request of Obama in resoonse to the failure of Congress to act. It was seen as a over reach and the GOP Congress tried to stop it but they could not as the funding for the program came via application fees and not appropriations. It also went to the SCOTUs and ended up 4-4 where it stayed because Merrick Garland.

I am trying to find the actual directive from Obama. Here is what some legal authorites have said about it and its companion policy DAPA (For Parents):
While the fate of DACA was left in a state of uncertainty due to the even number of judges on the Supreme Court in 2016, it’s not uncommon for presidents to allow certain groups of immigrants to enter the United States on a temporary basis. Importantly, so-called deferred action is constitutional, according to a group of more than 100 law professors who spoke out in favor of DACA, and often used to help better utilize limited government resources.

The group of legal experts wrote in an open letter:

Prosecutorial discretion exists because the government has limited resources and lacks the ability to enforce the law against the entire undocumented population. Recognizing this resource limitation, Congress has charged the Secretary of [the Department of Homeland Security] with ‘establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.’ Prosecutorial discretion and policies like DACA 2012 also have a humanitarian dimension, and such factors have long driven deferred action decisions. Finally, DACA 2012 has been an unqualified policy success, allowing over three-quarters of a million recipients to continue their education, receive professional licensing, find employment, and pay taxes into Social Security and other tax coffers
Click to expand...
 
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Buster Bluth said:
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.



Find it yourself?
Click to expand...
Lemme help you out...its NOT an EO. Its is a policy memorandum from DHS. It was given the effect of an EO because BO wanted to, but himself knew it to be illegal.

Smart Democrats know not to be definitive, but they also know it is "on shaky legal ground"...like earthquake shaky dude...
 
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Cackalacky said:
"Shaky ground".

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

It began as a enforcment issue memo issued by DHS. It is my understanding this memo was issued at the request of Obama in resoonse to the failure of Congress to act. It was seen as a over reach and the GOP Congress tried to stop it but they could not as the funding for the program came via application fees and not appropriations. It also went to the SCOTUs and ended up 4-4 where it stayed because Merrick Garland.

I am trying to find the actual directive from Obama. Here is what some legal authorites have said about it and its companion policy DAPA (For Parents):
Click to expand...

Yup...that was the point. President Obama knew it to be illegal...sory, that it would be "on shaky legal ground", and did it through DHS policy memo....not EO. Subsequent expansions were indeed attempted through EO, but were frozen by injunction I think, and unresolved in SCOTUS.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
phgreek said:
Lemme help you out...its NOT an EO. Its is a policy memorandum from DHS. It was given the effect of an EO because BO wanted to, but himself knew it to be illegal.

Smart Democrats know not to be definitive, but they also know it is "on shaky legal ground"...like earthquake shaky dude...
Click to expand...

The last paragraph of the pdf I posted sums it up rather clearly. Executive orders can take many forms. I guess it wasnt a formal EO but it is within the Execuitve Branch authority to execute existing policy. However most medianoutlets including Fox said the program was established through EOs. Still trying to find it. There isnt anything illegal about that though. I think its on shaky grounds in the fact that is only based on a lack of enforcement rather a legal extension of rights andnthusly can be taken away rather auickly and easily as we are seeing. Regardless it has a net positive for this country and it could be expanded and improved via sensible legislation. Not holding my breath on that one though.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
phgreek said:
Lemme help you out...its NOT an EO. Its is a policy memorandum from DHS. It was given the effect of an EO because BO wanted to, but himself knew it to be illegal.

Smart Democrats know not to be definitive, but they also know it is "on shaky legal ground"...like earthquake shaky dude...
Click to expand...

Your gotcha question was visible a mile away chief.

Still, you are suggesting it isn't a proper executive order because of that motivation.

Here's some light reading, a letter co-signed by dozens of law professors stressing that DACA is indeed legal.

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/...dfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf

DACA 2012 was announced b ythe President, and implemented in a memorandum by the Secretary of Homeland Security, on June 15, 2012. It enables qualifying individuals to request a temporary reprieve from removal known as “deferred action.” Deferred action is one form of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and has been used for decades by the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) (and formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS)) and over several administrations.
Click to expand...

The legal authority for DACA2012 originates from the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three (the Take Care Clause) states in part that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Inherent in the function of the “Take Care Clause” is the ability of the President to target some immigration cases for removal and to use prosecutorial discretion favorably in others. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"[W]e recognize that an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict—a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

As early as 1976, former INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen executed a legal opinion that identified the Take Care Clause as the primary source for prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters. He wrote: “Theultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the President ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Buster Bluth said:
Your gotcha question was visible a mile away chief.

Still, you are suggesting it isn't a proper executive order because of that motivation.

Here's some light reading, a letter co-signed by dozens of law professors stressing that DACA is indeed legal.

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/...dfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf
Click to expand...

Wasn't intended to be a gotcha...it was intended to have you go look for it yourself...but you gave me the find it yourself smug ass response...if you feel gotchad...stop being such a condescending prick.shrug.

Wasn't legal or supportable as an EO...they found a way to do it and avoid immediate challenge...however, I think it's pretty hard to say this isn't over reach if not illegal because it undermined enforcement of law...you may not like the how's, why's, who's of the enforcement...change the law, or add clarification...but DHS at the presidents urging acted outside its lane...dont think that illegal...fine
...it at least requires correction.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
phgreek said:
Wasn't intended to be a gotcha...it was intended to have you go look for it yourself...but you gave me the find it yourself smug ass response...if you feel gotchad...stop being such a condescending prick.shrug.

Wasn't legal or supportable as an EO...they found a way to do it and avoid immediate challenge...however, I think it's pretty hard to say this isn't over reach if not illegal because it undermined enforcement of law...you may not like the how's, why's, who's of the enforcement...change the law, or add clarification...but DHS at the presidents urging acted outside its lane...dont think that illegal...fine
...it at least requires correction.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what DACA does. It clarifies that given the power the President has to defer people, please defer from deporting "DREAMers" and focus resources on high priority tasks, like the two MS-13 gang members caught in my county recently. If Trump wants his ICE/DHS/etc chasing RNs who have been here for 10+ years and don't have a criminal record, that's effort that isn't used finding cartel members and drug traffickers, and thus makes us all less safe. But hey, those juicy political points!

One could just as easily say that if Congress doesn't like the President's discretion in implementing the law, change the law, file suit, or impeach him.

Conservatives are hiding behind a legality argument because they don't want to admit that Trump's order is sociopathic and detrimental to us all.
 
Last edited:
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Cackalacky said:
The last paragraph of the pdf I posted sums it up rather clearly. Executive orders can take many forms. I guess it wasnt a formal EO but it is within the Execuitve Branch authority to execute existing policy. However most medianoutlets including Fox said the program was established through EOs. Still trying to find it. There isnt anything illegal about that though. I think its on shaky grounds in the fact that is only based on a lack of enforcement rather a legal extension of rights andnthusly can be taken away rather auickly and easily as we are seeing. Regardless it has a net positive for this country and it could be expanded and improved via sensible legislation. Not holding my breath on that one though.
Click to expand...

tried to respond ...phone died...

anyway, agreed...I am ok with DACA as long as the authority to execute such a program is given through legislation. I will never believe DACA was in the president's or DHS's perview to execute as they did.
 
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Buster Bluth said:
That's exactly what DACA does.

One could just as easily say that if Congress doesn't like the President's discretion in implementing the law, change the law, file suit, or impeach him.

Conservatives are hiding behind a legality argument because they don't want to admit that Trump's order is sociopathic.
Click to expand...

No...I don't believe President Obama or DHS had the authority to implement this program. Interpretation is what you boil this down to. I don't think DACA is a reasonable interpretation of existing law, and the president intended to implement the program in a manner that was hard to challenge...which tells you he knew this was not a reasonable interpretation of the law. That motivation is telling on its face...but put that aside...

You seem to be telling me if a law does not specifically prohibit an interpretation, that you think, go for it? I think we've arrived at a staple item of conservative and progressive impasse.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
phgreek said:
No...I don't believe President Obama or DHS had the authority to implement this program. Interpretation is what you boil this down to. I don't think DACA is a reasonable interpretation of existing law, and the president intended to implement the program in a manner that was hard to challenge...which tells you he knew this was not a reasonable interpretation of the law. That motivation is telling on its face...but put that aside...

You seem to be telling me if a law does not specifically prohibit an interpretation, that you think, go for it? I think we've arrived at a staple item of conservative and progressive impasse.
Click to expand...

It was actually a brilliant move by Obama IMO considering that Congress couldnt do shit about it. Must have burned them up.

Again deferments and execution of laws are within the ability of the POTUS. Congress deferred authority on enforcement to DHS. Congress didnt control purse strings. They refused to enact sensible DREAM Act. Obama felt it was important to protect children and their families. Many Americans did. DREAM is a vey popular piece of legislation. Busters letter paints a clear picture suppoting the legal rationale for the action.

Again it was a smart move and it really shows me the true depth of absurdity that the obstructionist R's went to to undermine Obama. Or the extent at which Obama had to go to to do something to help these vulnerable people.
 
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Cackalacky said:
It was actually a brilliant move by Obama IMO considering that Congress couldnt do shit about it. Must have burned them up.

Again deferments and execution of laws are within the ability of the POTUS. Congress deferred authority on enforcement to DHS. Congress didnt control purse strings. They refused to enact sensible DREAM Act. Obama felt it was important to protect children and their families. Many Americans did. DREAM is a vey popular piece of legislation. Busters letter paints a clear picture suppoting the legal rationale for the action.

Again it was a smart move and it really shows me the true depth of absurdity that the obstructionist R's went to to undermine Obama. Or the extent at which Obama had to go to to do something to help these vulnerable people.
Click to expand...

So by that what can you conclude. I didn't say Obama was stupid. I disagree that he had the authority to do what he/DHS did as the law did not provide for it, and congress (regardless of how heartless and/or dysfunctional you think it was) basically said no. Yes presidents must interpret law at times...but never in a vacuum. HE HAD AN AGENDA which he was looking to jam into place, and found a series of MANEUVERS to do so...Your rendition of "he was acting within his powers" ignores all the other information he had, chief among that information...congress said no.
 
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Wild Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I 100% believe the cynical arguments on both sides... Republicans donors want cheap labor and Democrats want to import Democrat voters. I'm talking about the PR battle.
 
Domina Nostra

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
wizards8507 said:
Totally agree. I 100% believe the cynical arguments on both sides... Republicans donors want cheap labor and Democrats want to import Democrat voters. I'm talking about the PR battle.
Click to expand...

This is how I see it too.

On the other hand, the idea that the Executive has "prosecutorial discretion" not only to not deport persons who are here illegally, but actually grant them legal status, is pretty bold. That is just a catch-all "interpretation" that pretty much justifies any executive policy decision.

For example, Trump could just tell the IRS to not review tax forms from certain entities or regarding certain activities--maybe even settle with those filers for a de minimis settlement--and achieve tax reform without Congress. That's BS.

Here is what the Con-Law expert himself, Pres. Obama, said about that:

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. . . . The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. . . . There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-univision-town-hall
 
Last edited:
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEWS: Source tells me <a href="https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi">@NancyPelosi</a> called Trump this morning, asked him to tweet this <a href="https://t.co/A1z86V582Z">https://t.co/A1z86V582Z</a></p>— Heather Caygle (@heatherscope) <a href="https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/905790214844686336">September 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
connor_in

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
wizards8507 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEWS: Source tells me <a href="https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi">@NancyPelosi</a> called Trump this morning, asked him to tweet this <a href="https://t.co/A1z86V582Z">https://t.co/A1z86V582Z</a></p>— Heather Caygle (@heatherscope) <a href="https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/905790214844686336">September 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

the next tweet in this person's timeline...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Update: Dem aide says Trump called Pelosi, not the other way around <a href="https://t.co/ySiDEIoukj">https://t.co/ySiDEIoukj</a></p>— Heather Caygle (@heatherscope) <a href="https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/905799731955343360">September 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
wizards8507

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
connor_in said:
the next tweet in this person's timeline...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Update: Dem aide says Trump called Pelosi, not the other way around <a href="https://t.co/ySiDEIoukj">https://t.co/ySiDEIoukj</a></p>— Heather Caygle (@heatherscope) <a href="https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/905799731955343360">September 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...
Not better.
 
ACamp1900

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,226
Heather needs to get her damned facts straight!!!!
 
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
ACamp1900 said:
Heather needs to get her damned facts straight!!!!
Click to expand...



Seriously...thats the level these people operate on. Who called whom is somehow of consequence...shit I'm happy someone called someone else...something other than racist, loon or some expletive.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
N_D_Fighting_Irish said:
LA County alone 1.3 Billion dollars in welfare payments were paid out to illegal immigrant families for the past two years. Can you imagine the number if Amnesty is passed?

LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years | Fox News
Click to expand...

Key word is "families." As in, it is their American children who are eligible. This is where I point out that you're the "the law is the law, if you don't like it, change it" guy?

You could remove all ~12,000,000 illegals and we'd still be paying welfare costs to eligible American children. It's not rocket science.

FWIW, LA is home to about a million illegals. Or 1/12 Of the total. Given that illegal immigrants pay about $11-12 billion annually in taxes just to SS/Medicare, this article could be titled "illegal immigrants in LA metro alone pay $1 billion in taxes to federal entitlement programs" too.

See to not be considered a sloppy ignorant xenophobe, it helps to add up both the pros and cons.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Yes I am angry that a demagogue had captured what was once a sensible party and has given a voice to clowns who outright refuse to listen to widely accepted data because it doesn't fit their bullshit view.

So don't be a snowflake. If N_D_Fighting_Irish had the data to support his position, he'd come up with it.
 
Last edited:
Polish Leppy 22

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Buster Bluth said:
Yes I am angry that a demagogue had captured what was once a sensible party and has given a voice to clowns who outright refuse to listen to widely accepted data because it doesn't fit their bullshit view.

So don't be a snowflake. If N_D_Fighting_Irish had the data to support his position, he'd come up with it.
Click to expand...

Get off the pedestal. It's a joke. Let's pretend the same number of illegal immigrants from country "A" made their way (illegally) to country "B." Since you're the smartest man on the Internet who's here to educate us all, please tell us how you determine the contribution of all 12 million illegal immigrants pay to social security and medicare.

As far as bullshit views are concerned, aren't you the one holding the opinion that if we removed all 12 million illegal immigrants (not realistic) the US economy would collapse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top