TakeYouToTasker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Come on now. Follow that thought to it's logical conclusion. You are saying that each state will have it's own Department of Immigration. Each state will have its own independent policy on immigration. So you'll have customs and immigration at each state border between states, because you've abolished the unifying system. That's not the logical conclusion. Article 1, Section 8 (the role of Congress): To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. No one here is arguing that the Federal Government does not have the authority to legislate immigration policy. The Federal Government is allocated the power to allow or restrict immigration, and those powers are thereby expressly forbidden to the States. The problem with your position, is that those powers are not vested in the Executive Branch of the government. The Document clearly states where those powers are vested, and just as the States are forbidden those powers, so is the President. Edited November 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I'm honored, but Gatorman's the real champ. I can't go nearly as many rounds as that clobberhead. Maybe I won a round. Check it out: That's me in the 88! You linked to the wrong video. This is you: http://youtu.be/eVXOvfy2A7E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 That's not the logical conclusion. Article 1, Section 8 (the role of Congress): No one here is arguing that the Federal Government does not have the authority to legislate immigration policy. The Federal Government is allocated the power to allow or restrict immigration, and those powers are thereby expressly forbidden to the States. The problem with your position, is that those powers are not vested in the Executive Branch of the government. The Document clearly states where those powers are vested, and just as the States are forbidden those powers, so is the President. They are not being naturalized, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who is Yuri? Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) That's not the logical conclusion. Article 1, Section 8 (the role of Congress): No one here is arguing that the Federal Government does not have the authority to legislate immigration policy. The Federal Government is allocated the power to allow or restrict immigration, and those powers are thereby expressly forbidden to the States. The problem with your position, is that those powers are not vested in the Executive Branch of the government. The Document clearly states where those powers are vested, and just as the States are forbidden those powers, so is the President. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" It's my understanding that the Executive Branch hasn't been given the tools for the immigration enforcement job at hand by the Legislative Branch and that opens the door to executive action. I'm not blaming Republicans, it's just that sometimes it's better to do something about a problem, than to do nothing and let it get worse. Executive actions are nothing new. I can't really predict the precedent this action might set, or that hypothetical, what if it were a Republican. I'm open to suggestion. LOL, Nanker. Edited November 21, 2014 by Franz Kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 They are not being naturalized, though I highlighted that passage because it speaks to the process of Naturalization. Being permitted to stay is part of that process. The only role of the executive is "to faithfully execute" the laws Congress passes in regard to immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Some here should read slowly then read a second time. FACT CHECK: Obama's claims on illegal immigration By ALICIA A. CALDWELL and ERICA WERNER WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama made some notable omissions Thursday night in his remarks about the unilateral actions he's taking on immigration. OBAMA: "It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive - only Congress can do that. All we're saying is we're not going to deport you." THE FACTS: He's saying, and doing, more than that. The changes also will make those covered eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs. OBAMA: "Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years." THE FACTS: The numbers certainly surged this year, but it was more than a "brief spike." The number of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border has been on the rise since the 2011 budget year. That year about 16,000 children were found crossing the border alone. In 2012, the Border Patrol reported more than 24,000 children, followed by more than 38,800 in 2013. In the last budget year, more than 68,361 children were apprehended. OBAMA: "Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts." THE FACTS: Indeed, in the 2014 budget year the Border Patrol made 486,651 arrests of border crossers, among the fewest since the early 1970s. But border arrests have been on the rise since 2011. The decline in crossings is not purely, or perhaps even primarily, due to the Obama administration. The deep economic recession early in his presidency and the shaky aftermath made the U.S. a less attractive place to come for work. The increase in arrests since 2011 also can be traced in part to the economy — as the recovery improved, more people came in search of opportunity OBAMA: "When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders." THE FACTS: He overlooked the fact that he promised as a candidate for president in 2008 to have an immigration bill during his first year in office and move forward on it quickly. He never kept that promise to the Latino community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" It's my understanding that the Executive Branch hasn't been given the tools for the immigration enforcement job at hand by the Legislative Branch and that opens the door to executive action. I'm not blaming Republicans, it's just that sometimes it's better to do something about a problem, than to do nothing and let it get worse. Executive actions are nothing new. I can't really predict the precedent this action might set, or that hypothetical, what if it were a Republican. I'm open to suggestion. And there's the rub. The passage, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" does not mean "To make all Laws which the President requires to initiate his policy agenda". The Executive branch had all of the tools to execute immigration Law, as written by Congress. The President just didn't like the Law. That doesn't vest in him the powers to act outside of the Law, or to blur the clearly drawn lines which our Seperation of Powers depends upon. All Presidents have had to deal with Laws that didn't agree with their policy agendas. Our system was built that way by design. It's a feature rather than a flaw. The purpose was to prevent exactly what this President did last night. Think about the Document in it's historical context: our Country, in it's infancy, had just thrown off the yoke of a Monarch. Our Founders sought to prevent exactly that manifestation of power in a single individual, and so they laborously and painstakingly divided them, granting the law-making role to what it viewed to be the most important part of the Government: the House, which is a body made up of the direct representitives of the People. The Figurehead of our government was granted only the power "faithfully execute" the laws which the People had made, which were then approved by the several States (the Senate). The President has no power to act unilaterally. Monarchs do. And it is in this historical context which people are refering to the President as a King. Edited November 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Some here should read slowly then read a second time. Anyone willing to listen last night knows the entire speech was full of crap. It was emotional, and well delivered, and did what it needed to do to spread the word for everyone outside the country to flood the borders again, but it was also a speech filled with lies and half-truths. Your first tip is when a non-believer like Obama quotes Scriptures. The next is when he quoted Bush without blaming him for something. The only good thing about it, if there is any upside, is that he pretty much put yet another nail in the progressive coffin. It won't be evident for a few years, but this is going to hurt their party for years over years. Personally, I have to resist the temptation to gleefully anticipate when a Republican president decides the welfare and tax laws don't work for him/her, and he has to act unilaterally to remedy them both. Edited November 21, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I highlighted that passage because it speaks to the process of Naturalization. Being permitted to stay is part of that process. The only role of the executive is "to faithfully execute" the laws Congress passes in regard to immigration. Oh, that's splitting hairs. I'm ruling that the executive branch is safely in constitutional waters and is in no danger of running aground on rocks of unconstitutional actions Hell, the next GOP President can repeal the ACA by ordering the IRS to not enforce it and granting a blanket pardon to everyone without insurance. Sure, and I could get drunk and drive the wrong way up an on ramp to the 90, but I won't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Oh, that's splitting hairs. I'm ruling that the executive branch is safely in constitutional waters and is in no danger of running aground on rocks of unconstitutional actions It's not splitting hairs at all. The power of creating immigration policy is clearly vested in the Legislative Branch. The only role of the Executive in this regard is to faithfully execute the Laws as written by Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 ‘What You Can Get Away With’ FTA: When I was in college, and figuring things out, I noticed that the Left had a disdain for process. They would use it, if the process was to their advantage. But they would jettison it the second the process was inconvenient. What mattered was the result, period. A friend of mine wrote me this morning saying that he feared Republicans would not “put the genie back in the bottle.” Obama has now broken free from our political process. Republicans will feel unhindered, when they have executive power. I don’t believe it. First, I don’t think Republicans in general want to abuse their power (though some do, for sure). They have a constitutional conscience, or a semblance of one. But second, the “culture” won’t let them. The media, the professors, the entertainment industry — they won’t allow anti-constitutionalism for conservative or right-wing ends. They will allow it only for “progressive” ends. If a conservative result threatens, they will be gung-ho for the process. Many years ago, I was watching Crossfire, when Michael Kinsley was a host. He made a refreshing admission, I thought. It went something like this: “We liberals believe in judicial activism, so we get to do what we want on the bench. You conservatives don’t believe in judicial activism — so you have to abide by your principle. Too bad. Ha ha.” Andy Warhol said, “Art is what you can get away with.” For Barack Obama and those who share his politics, democracy is what you can get away with. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 It's not splitting hairs at all. The power of creating immigration policy is clearly vested in the Legislative Branch. The only role of the Executive in this regard is to faithfully execute the Laws as written by Congress. He's broadly interpreting the laws, that's all. Not the end of the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 He's broadly interpreting the laws, that's all. Not the end of the world Not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 He's broadly interpreting the laws, that's all. Not the end of the world What law is he broadly interpreting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 What law is he broadly interpreting? You really have a schitload of patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 What law is he broadly interpreting? the one that created the immigration department he is in charge of Why are you not mad at the GOP about all this? What are they doing about Obama's actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 gatorman is what happens when Franz rubs an empty Labatts bottle.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 gatorman is what happens when Franz rubs an empty Labatts bottle.... They're calling it "an empty Labatts bottle" now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 gatorman is what happens when Franz rubs an empty Labatts bottle.... They're calling it "an empty Labatts bottle" now? Ya know, I have a theory. I think Mitch and John Bohner are so happy Obama did this. They know the haters in the GOP will NEVER do anything to help the illegals out and if Obama wants to do something, well good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Missed this part last night when Obama was explaining how the illegals will be "paying their fair share." All hail the "Have-A-Baby Incentive Program For the Poor!" It is going to be very busy. …once illegal immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, they’re would be entitled to EITC payments The payments may be huge, and will rise each year. According to the Internal Revenue Service, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997. A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone. Parents who earn less than the threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children. The EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics. Another study says that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced annual immigration. Edited November 21, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts