The End of DACA?

245

Comments

  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 16,693
    rgambs said:
    Can someone please explain DACA? Shouldn't the focus be on the people who brought the children to the USA illegally and hold them accountable?
    Why punish the children for the sins of their parents?
    The bigger question is why eject proven contributors to society who haven't committed crimes from a society.
    Makes no sense.
    These aren't migrant pickers, they aren't the guys on the corner looking for general labor work.
    They are proven contributors, at a much higher percentage than Trump supporters!
    Exactly most of them are working students that are contributing way more to society than the Yahoo!'s who are sporting white robes and swastika arm bands at rallies!
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,828
    CM189191 said:
    How is it unconstitutional because it harms latinos but constitutional because it benefits them? This falls on Congress and Obama.  Congress should pass immigration reform and Obama overstepped his powers as POTUS.  
    How did Obama overstep? Wasn't DACA challenged in the courts by Texas and upheld? 
    Ok...so if Obama did overstep, why wasn't he challenged on DACA like he was on DAPA? 
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,694
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
  • An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,694
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,828
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,594
    CM189191 said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,828
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,594
    edited September 7
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."
    nevermind, misread your quote.  Has there been any law professors notions to the contrary?  Serious question, not setting a trap
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,687
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."
    If course it is. I too have been disturbed about the discourse surrounding this issue. It's cuckoo bananas IMO, and I'm a little taken aback by some of what those of you who are going on about "the law" have said.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,583
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."

    "Unilaterally created by President Obama, DACA provides pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors. It gives them a promise that they won't be deported, as well as providing them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.

    As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who comes to the U.S. Even if we doubled our current legal immigration quotas, there would still be people who would enter or remain in the U.S. illegally. Enforcing our immigration laws encourages people to come to the U.S. legally and discourages illegal immigration.

    Unfortunately, the U.S. government has for many years failed to faithfully enforce our immigration laws. This has inevitably encouraged more and more illegal immigration. DACA is the pinnacle of non-enforcement; not only does it protect illegal immigrants from deportation, it provides benefits that by law are reserved for American citizens and legal immigrants. Why come to the U.S. legally if you can acquire many of the same benefits by coming illegally?"

    This is the main problem I have with DACA. Lets fix the problem at its base instead of creating work arounds.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/348924-thank-trump-if-he-finally-ends-the-unconstitutional-daca
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Dirtie_FrankDirtie_Frank Posts: 1,333
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    96 Randall's Island II
    98 CAA
    00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
    05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
    06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
    08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
    09 Phillie III
    10 MSG II
    13 Wrigley Field
    16 Phillie II
  • Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,583
    edited September 7
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,594
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    It's almost like it was set up for failure in order to politically undermine the process of implementing it the "right" way.  Obama knew that republicans were against every EO that he implemented, I remember all of the "king Obama, my way or the highway" rhetoric at that time.  The political pawns are the ones that are going to suffer due to what many see as executive power overreach.  Has nothing to do with it being a "good" or "bad" program, but the ongoing debate of political overreach.  I feel terrible for the pawns in this game.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,687
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 16,693
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    No doubt about it ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,594
    edited September 7
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,687
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,694
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    If people wouldn't hire illegal immigrants, this would be a non-issue. If employers were labelled the problem and not so much the individuals, it would shift the whole discussion. 
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,594
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,583
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    It's impossible to make that comparison because we border a country that isn't that way to our south and has significantly worse quality of life factors, which is why illegal immigration occurs. You're right, if we bordered Sweden it'd be a non issue.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,594
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    If people wouldn't hire illegal immigrants, this would be a non-issue. If employers were labelled the problem and not so much the individuals, it would shift the whole discussion. 
    Hey, I agree.  Many companies are catching a lot of shit when immigration comes in and deports half of their workforce.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,694
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.
    Are you sure it left rhetoric creating division? When Stephem Miller, a White House employee, talks about immigration being limited to English speakers only, what do you think he's talking about? Let's not bury our heads in the sand about who is in the White House and their beleif system they want to turn into law. That's where your division begins.  
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,025
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.
    Are you sure it left rhetoric creating division? When Stephem Miller, a White House employee, talks about immigration being limited to English speakers only, what do you think he's talking about? Let's not bury our heads in the sand about who is in the White House and their beleif system they want to turn into law. That's where your division begins.  
    Well, yeah, but....
    Antifa!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,687
    I could not respond to PJPOWER's reply to me any better than others already did. I'll just say that I was rather disgusted by the reply... so I'm glad others fielded that one for me, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.
    The DACA applicants are not "corrupt" nor "gang ridden." Keep promulgating the right's false narrative and fear peddling because fear is all they have to run on. Talk about division? Yea, I know rapists and drug dealers.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,583
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    Obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor. At Harvard no less. Think he knew what he was doing? As opposed to Trump? Fancy that.
    Interesting thought but he did say it himself:

    Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

    “There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

    I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

    “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. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.” (3/28/11)



    And then, oh my god, he went back on his word. Politicians never do that. Only democrats, black ones and women. My point is that after the "partners" absolutely refused to work with him, he went nuclear. And when he did so, he's smart enough to have crafted his EO in such a manner as to stand up in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, thus buying time and at least politically, "trying" to do something about an outstanding and important issue. The party of no bears the shame and responsibility for not doing anything. EOs are not illegal of and by themselves. Distasteful yes. Illegal no. The party of no could have passed a draconian immigration reform bill and dared Obama to veto it. Or they could have passed a bill that gave the Dems everything and then some. Or they could have passed something inbetween. They did nothing. Shame on them and fuck 'em with an EO in the ass.
    No one here has said or implied the bolded part above. More of the us and them response really works well for the country as whole. In the end, it's the people you're so concerned about being fucked. This isn't about republicans and democrats, blacks or whites or browns or whatever you keep mentioning. Yes, republicans wouldn't work with Obama, but in the end he isn't sticking it to them, it's those he wanted to protect.
    I respectfully disagree. If 88% of the 800,000 were of Northern European descent, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
     
    That is 100% correct.
    Because Obama would not have cared enough about it to sign an executive order?  If our borders had been better secured, this would also be a non-issue at this point.  
    No, because nobody would have been pushing to deport them in the first place, rendering Obama's EO unnecessary. If 88% of illegal immigrants were white western and northern Europeans, having more secure borders probably wouldn't be much of a hot topic either!
    Well, we will never know because 88% of illegal immigrants are not coming from Canada or overseas.  Seems like there is an island near New York that was used almost exclusively for deterrence of illegal immigration from EU, right?  Make it about skin color all you want, though, as it helps keep the left "we're so divided" rhetoric at float.  The issue is that there is no ocean protecting us from the corrupt, gang ridden country to the south.  There are no "hazardous travel warnings" for spring breakers to northern EU.
    The DACA applicants are not "corrupt" nor "gang ridden." Keep promulgating the right's false narrative and fear peddling because fear is all they have to run on. Talk about division? Yea, I know rapists and drug dealers.
    No, they're not, but again, no one has said that. The point was about the overall issue of illegal immigration and why it is occurring. The color of skin is not to blame for the enforcement, or lack there of for the most part. If a prominently white/European country was a direct border contact with the US and living conditions were as they are now, they'd also be fleeing that country and the same problem would be at hand. It's easy to default this to a race issue because of the current administration, but remove the figureheads and actually just consider the issue for a minute.
    It's a hopeless situation...
Sign In or Register to comment.