Immigration: Obama crosses the Rubicon, alea iacta est

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Nov 25, 2014.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    President Obama has issued an executive order creating, by his sole authority, a legal status for up to 5 million illegal aliens. This may be legal and that issue will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, but it violates all precedent and, if allowed to stand, represents a significant expansion of executive power.

    Many have pointed out that Presidents have long enjoyed the right to issue executive orders and that even such a conservative icon as President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order granting legal status to illegal aliens.

    What separates President Obama's action from those of previous presidents is both the scope and the context of his action. President Reagan issued an executive order that cleaned up an oversight in a recently passed amnesty bill. He issued an executive order deferring the removal of the children of illegals who had recently been given legal status by congress.

    President Reagan was executing the law in a manner consistent with the statute as passed by congress. Obama, on the other hand, has done the exact opposite, Congress has explicitly refused to pass a new amnesty bill and the recent midterm election has made the passage of such a bill even less likely.

    So in response Obama has acted in defiance of the will of congress and done what he himself has repeatedly said he lacked the authority to do multiple times. He has bypassed the legislative branch of government entirely and granted amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens by presidential decree.

    Even if you think it is right and just to grant legal status to people that have lived and worked in the US for years, this sort of action is not compatible with our Republican form of government.

    Obama may win this battle in the short term, but there will be another Republican president someday and the Left may well rue the day they gave the U.S. president the power to ignore congress and rule by presidential decree.

    PS: I couldn't post this thread without including this excellent skit from Saturday Night Live:



    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...et_a_precedent_for_gop_presidents_124741.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    A nice article from the Wall Street Journal on this subject:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-the-next-prez-and-the-obama-way-1416528052
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And Obama is executing the law in a manner consistent with all the statutes passed by Reagan's Congress, and every Republican controlled Congress since.

    This Congress, prevented by the Republicans in it, has refused for six years to enact statutes of its own, so the standing law is what Obama has to work with. You have nobody to blame but your own fool selves.

    What kind of amazing, unreal, juvenile fantasy world are you guys living in, where you think these Presidential powers were granted by the Left?

    When exactly do you think that happened? For Pete's sake, it's only been six years since the Left - with no way to stop it, no Congressional representation, no control of committees and media and all the noise machinery of the whackjobs running the Wall Street Journal et al, the major radio conglomerations, and a majority of the TV stations in the country - was watching you guys operate in your eighth year of suckering for something called a "Unitary Executive". Remember the Unitary Executive? Remember voting for him - twice - and all his buddies?

    It was an extension of the Reagan administration's theory of governance by Presidential edict (remember the air traffic controllers? remember "well I don't think that's true"? remember "if the President does it, it's not illegal" - you voted for that). How do you guys manage to forget all that stuff you did, and still remember how to tie your shoes? The eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Sunshine_of_the_Spotless_Mind) is not a virtue, you know. It's not innocence. It's not a get out of jail free card, if justice ever comes into fashion again. You are still responsible for what you have said and done.

    Here's Wiki on what you supported, voted for, worked hard to impose on the rest of us:
    You were told, informed, warned, and opposed, by the people who have been right about everything you've been wrong about, which is everything of political significance, for forty years now - and watching you standing in the middle of your mess trying to blame somebody else, anybody else, got old twenty years ago and more.

    Grow up. You've had enough time, been cut enough slack. Just grow up.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    It may well be a good thing to do,
    but such a divisive action should not be taken by an individual.
    How can he plan for potential difficulties, if he has not opened the matter for debate?
    Is his brain so powerful that he is as smart as representatives from every state, totalling 100's of experienced people?

    It is inconceivable that a UK Prime Minister would take such a decision upon himself,
    even if it was possible for him to do so.

    Can it be countered legally?
    If so, it will be.
     
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Obama couldn't get the law he wanted on immigration passed, so he imposed it by executive decree. What he has done can by no means be described as faithfully executing the law.

    if this is allowed to stand it will establish by precedent a new high water mark of executive authority.
     
  9. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Obama may not have originated the procedure, but it is anti-Democratic.
    If you want Royalty, we have a few spare doing nothing that we could let you have cheap.
    We stopped letting our own Royalty behave this way in 1215.
    Magna Carta.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I hate to tell you this but there are a lot of anti-democratic things and institutions in The United States. Our constitution isn’t a democratic by any modern definition of the word. For example, each state in the union is entitled to two senators regardless of the number of people in that state. Take Alaska as an example, the entire population of the state is about the size of one congressional district, about 600,000 people and they get two senators. New York with a population of 20 million only gets two senators. And then there is the practice of gerrymandering which allows Republicans to have a majority in the House of Representatives even though they received fewer votes. And then there is mass legal disenfranchisement, a tactic Republicans have used heavily for more than a decade now.

    That said, I think you don’t understand the problem. Madanthony and his fellow Republicans are, as usual misrepresenting the facts. There is nothing illegal or untoward or unprecedented about what Obama has done. The US has an estimated illegal aliens living in the country – about 3% to 4% of the country. Congress has only funded the deportation of a small fraction of that number. It takes money and time to deport people. These people are entitled to a hearing once identified, and that takes money and resources which congress has not funded.

    What Obama has done is prioritized enforcement of our immigration laws. He hasn’t given amnesty as Republicans allege. What would your government do if your parliament refused to provide enough money to enforce all its laws? That is the situation in which Obama finds himself. And it’s not a problem that is unique to Obama. This goes back to Reagan.

    What Obama has done is to say, he is going to focus his deportation efforts on violent criminals and people who are currently crossing the border or have recently crossed the border illegally. He isn’t going to focus on and spend his limited funding on illegals that have successfully integrated into our society and have been here for more than 5 years. That is what Obama has done.

    Unfortunately the Rubicon was crossed six years ago when Obama was sworn into office while Republican leaders were secretly meeting and planning to oppose this POTUS at every opportunity. Republicans cannot stand a member of the opposite party in the Oval Office. Republicans don’t care what it costs them or the nation to depose the POTUS. They would do anything to capture the White House. And that is indeed sad and dangerous. It used to be the health and wellbeing of the country outweighed partisan interest. It isn’t that way anymore with Republicans.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Actually, no, Obama issued an executive order just like every POTUS has done. It's part of the job. Obama hasn't changed the law. Just because you see a political opportunity, it doesn't mean you are being honest...quite the opposite.

    Obama's executive order isn't a replacement for the bipartisan immigration law passed by the Senate and which Republican House Speaker Boehner has refused to even allow a vote on in the House. Obama has said he wanted a comprehensive immigration law passed by congress on a number of occasions. On the eve of his signing the executive order he challenged Republicans once again to pass a law or a series of laws to address our immigration problems. If Republicans want all illegal aliens deported, then they need to say so and they need to fund the effort - things they have not done. I wonder why?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Maybe next time Congress can act instead of refusing to act and telling the president to use his executive authority.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You claim there is no precedent, then you gave an example of a precedent. The only difference between Reagan's action and Obama's is the scale of the impact, and this is driven by the increasing scale of the problem and the lack of congressional action.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yeah, there is no precedent, if you ignore all the precedents...funny how that works

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But it works for Republicans and so they use it.
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Let me think, the ILLEGAL aliens have come into America wrongly which is against the law and is a felony offence. Then the ILLEGAL aliens worked without pay any taxes which is also a felony. They put their children in schools by lying that they were citizens and the schools didn't check to see if their parents were actual citizens which again is a crime in many parts of the country. So now the President wants to make these law breakers part of America as citizens which , to me, is a travesty of justice. Just put the ILLEGAL aliens on buses, trains or planes and send them all home and let them enter America legally as many have before them.Why are these people being given the right to citizenship when there are thousands on waiting lists that have done it the right way?
     
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    The problem wasn't that he "couldn't get it passed"...

    Republicans refused to even bring it up for a vote! It wasn't a matter of them saying yes or no... it was a matter of them not even having the cajones to bring the damn thing to the table to see what the outcome would be!
     
    joepistole likes this.
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The truth is, we need these illegals. Contrary to Republican beliefs, the vast majority are good productive residents. If they all were to leave tomorrow we would be in a world of hurt.

    It is way past time to recognize them.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    No longer possible. Times have changed; the vast majority of immigrants wishing to enter legally can no longer do so.

    (BTW this law doesn't make illegal aliens "part of America as citizens" - it just says "don't deport some of them for three years." No citizenship. You may have been listening to FOX News if you heard this from somewhere.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    1. It's not a felony, you cannot be sent to a federal prison for being here without a visa. You can only be deported.
    2. Obama's executive order does not give citizenship, only green cards.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Too late; Bush Senior set that precedent decades ago by implementing amnesty when Congress refused to pass it. (And I have a feeling you supported him when he did that.) Indeed, they both grant amnesty to about the same percentage of illegal aliens. So no new precedents here.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    LOL.... "The People" want an Executive who can 'get to work' and 'do the people's business' instead of wasting time with a gridlocked inefficient do-nothing Congress. Back when Government was LIMITED and small - this wouldn't matter. Before Income Tax/Labor Tax the most contact any American had with the Federal Government was the US Post. Back before minimum wage, welfare ghettos, visas, passports, and etc.... immigration was natural and many people came and made a life by being productive and many people left because they didn't like life in a free society and preferred life under an Aristocracy. I was reading about a French man who, after spending a year in the USA in the 1800s found the place too parochial and left. During the second world war, many Jews escaped to China, as it was one of the few countries that didn't require a passport for entry. For most of human history, aside from war, most humans came and went as they saw fit. However, once income tax is introduced, and the notion of getting something 'for free' from 'the commons' without providing value - then we see massive numbers of regulation, the loss of liberty, the formation of fiat currency and central banks - and the absolutely unfathomable world wars that could then be waged.

    The solution to a gridlocked waste of time CONgress and over-reaching Executive is simple. LIMIT the size and scope of Government. Shrink it. Put it in a box. Who cares if a bunch of lowly paid no-body bureaucrats (with very little power) are gridlocked and can't decide if the US Post should deliver mail on Saturday? The answer is nobody. Because the free-market has probably already provided a better, cheaper, preferable voluntary free-trade option.

    However, when you have a Government that reaches into every aspect of your life - spies on each and every one of your on-line communications, uses regulations to micromanage you, your house, your job, what you eat, what drugs you take, who you marry, if you can sell arranged flowers or not, and etc.... Well, if you want the State to be your Nanny, then you're better off with a benevolent Dictator. And a Dictator is best supported by an Aristocracy with the power to tax you for their benefit - as making you more productive is good for them and you. And, as their Peon, you will enjoy some small benefit if your local Aristocrat is competent. Peons paid less tax to their Aristocrats then you are paying for our illusion of a Democratic Republic.

    So, if you want to be ruled by a Government - there are much much more efficient forms. Aristocracy being the time-tested most stable and overall best form of such governments.

    The US Government is the largest most intrusive government in human history. It spends more money on wars (mostly over phony made up reasons), consumes the most of our planets limited resources, pollutes more than any other institution in history, jails the most non-violent 'FREE' Americans in history and is all around an menace. It's exactly in-line with all other governments in history. They start out small, grow like a cancer, kill their host. Rinse/Repeat.


    But, don't worry, we're getting more "Executive" orders in the coming decades - soon a gridlocked CONgress will be a thing of the past.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Immigrants can be classified as illegal for one of three reasons: entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or violating the terms of legal entry.[57]

    Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[58]

    1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
    2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
    3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
    The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...qwhIAO&usg=AFQjCNFBBmU29m9k71kYu3BedtBY7RDkjg
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Exactly the opposite has happened. Republicans are now reaping what they have sown. When they cheered GWB's expansion of executive power, they weakened the power of Congress. When they remained silent on Bush Sr's override of Congress, they implicitly consented to executive override of Congress on immigration issues. Perhaps they now regret their silence - but it is too late to change their minds.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2014

Share This Page