If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   A compelling argument against Obama's executive order on immigration: "America is a nation of laws...to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with (the) role as president"   (cnsnews.com) divider line 167
    More: Interesting, obama, mandates, presidential executive order, school ages, laws, illegal immigrants  
•       •       •

1227 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 1:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 10:06:01 AM
That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by and also for "signing statements".
 
2012-06-18 10:12:58 AM
a) there is no executive order on this
b) this is a DHS enforcement policy issue
c) if Obama wasn't deported more illegals than the last guy, you might have grounds to say he was not enforcing immigration law as vigorously as he should
d) if any of these young people get in trouble, they can be booted out pretty farking fast under this policy
e) it is temporary and if Congress doesn't like it, they are welcome to pass more comprehensive legislation dealing with it one way or the other.
f) you have an election in 4 months to express your anger over this issue if you want
 
2012-06-18 10:12:58 AM

Demetrius: That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by and also for "signing statements".


Shush. Those are for Republican Presidents, and you know that.
 
2012-06-18 10:14:16 AM
the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...
 
2012-06-18 10:15:09 AM
I'd insert some pithy comment about beds and the making thereof, but I'm just too busy enjoying a smidgen of freeper tears in my coffee.
 
2012-06-18 10:15:19 AM

mrshowrules: a) there is no executive order on this
b) this is a DHS enforcement policy issue
c) if Obama wasn't deported more illegals than the last guy, you might have grounds to say he was not enforcing immigration law as vigorously as he should
d) if any of these young people get in trouble, they can be booted out pretty farking fast under this policy
e) it is temporary and if Congress doesn't like it, they are welcome to pass more comprehensive legislation dealing with it one way or the other.
f) you have an election in 4 months to express your anger over this issue if you want


Pretty much. This is just outrage de jour, and is making its way through the blogosphere, with pretty much the same argument.

One might think that this was...planned over the weekend to spin things...
 
2012-06-18 10:15:40 AM

Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...


Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.
 
2012-06-18 10:16:22 AM

Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.


Or CNS. Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to
 
2012-06-18 10:16:51 AM
First off, this was not an executive order, it took the form of a memo from the Secretary of Homeland Security sent to DHS. Secondly, the executive branch has the power to stop prosecution, or to refrain from prosecution at all (see U.S. v. Cox and Jewels of the Princess of Orange), and here the executive branch is choosing to refrain from prosecuting the class of illegal immigrants who were brought here as children and satisfy other circumstances. Third, the statutes specifically give the executive branch discretion in how to enforce the law and provide the executive branch leeway in choosing who to deport. Yes, in the past this was applied on a case by case basis but doing something categorically is not excluded. Fourth, just to end with an ad hominem, if you really think that people who did not choose to come to this country illegally, but have grown up here and often do not even know their home language, should be kicked out, then you are pretty heartless.
 
2012-06-18 10:16:54 AM

Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...


Not even a signing statement though. A matter of the Executive ordering functions of the government in matters of policy. Even less froofraw than declining to defend DOMA vigorously...
 
2012-06-18 10:19:22 AM

Rincewind53: First off, this was not an executive order, it took the form of a memo from the Secretary of Homeland Security sent to DHS. Secondly, the executive branch has the power to stop prosecution, or to refrain from prosecution at all (see U.S. v. Cox and Jewels of the Princess of Orange), and here the executive branch is choosing to refrain from prosecuting the class of illegal immigrants who were brought here as children and satisfy other circumstances. Third, the statutes specifically give the executive branch discretion in how to enforce the law and provide the executive branch leeway in choosing who to deport. Yes, in the past this was applied on a case by case basis but doing something categorically is not excluded. Fourth, just to end with an ad hominem, if you really think that people who did not choose to come to this country illegally, but have grown up here and often do not even know their home language, should be kicked out, then you are pretty heartless.


Pretty much, and considering that this Administration has pursued immigration policy fairly vigorously, with deportation being up from the last Administration, this is an attempt to cast attention away from that...
 
2012-06-18 10:19:31 AM
Just wait 'til these guys hear about presidential pardons.
 
2012-06-18 10:20:10 AM
I personally applaud President Obama for this executive order that prioritizes the limited resources Congress funds immigration enforcement with. Kids who are behaving themselves, going to school shouldn't simply be thrown out of the country because their parents brought them here illegally.

When has justice been as simple as a rulebook?
 
2012-06-18 10:21:00 AM

Demetrius: That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by and also for "signing statements".


Ugh. That was supposed to be...

That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by [insert your favorite president here] and also for "signing statements".
 
2012-06-18 10:21:26 AM

Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.


Good thing it's not either of those, then!
 
2012-06-18 10:26:52 AM
That's what passes for a "compelling argument" over at CNS, eh?
 
2012-06-18 10:31:00 AM

Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.


look, if you want to complain about abuses of power and authority - then lets quit messing around and repeal the gotdamn patriot act and make cannabis schedule IV. Book it - done. if you're serious about stopping invasive government, that right there would stop about 60% of the bullshiat from the Feds.

but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?
 
2012-06-18 10:31:28 AM

Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...


This is vaguely different. Had he issued an actual executive order or a signing statement saying to stop prosecution, pardon, or whatever any of those people (which he didn't, exactly), well, pardon is within his power.

The interesting question is if he had issued an actual pardon what effect it would have on the citizenship of those people. AND what effect it would have on the people who DIDN'T get a pardon.
 
2012-06-18 10:32:48 AM

Weaver95: Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.

look, if you want to complain about abuses of power and authority - then lets quit messing around and repeal the gotdamn patriot act and make cannabis schedule IV. Book it - done. if you're serious about stopping invasive government, that right there would stop about 60% of the bullshiat from the Feds.

but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?


I agree with everything you wrote there, although I think the feds would still find no shortage of bullshiat if we did reform marijuana laws.
 
2012-06-18 10:34:23 AM

Weaver95: but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?


I think that comes from the non-monolithic nature both of the parties and of the people. What some people consider an abuse other people think is an obvious protection. Legalizing weed would be legalizing murder in some people's minds, and those people are pretty vocal with their reps.
 
2012-06-18 10:35:35 AM

Weaver95: Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.

look, if you want to complain about abuses of power and authority - then lets quit messing around and repeal the gotdamn patriot act and make cannabis schedule IV. Book it - done. if you're serious about stopping invasive government, that right there would stop about 60% of the bullshiat from the Feds.

but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?


To be fair, Neal Stephenson brought up the point in Cobweb:

"You have to remember, Betsy," Schoendienst would say, "that D.C. is not about solving problems. If we solved problems, there would be nothing else left to do and we would all have to go out and something honest-like fry hamburgers. No, D.C. is about keeping jobs, which we do by managing problems. There is no higher achievement than making a problem your own, managing that problem, nurturing that problem along until you've made it to retirement and hopefully mentored a whole new generation of young bureaucrats to whom you can bequeath the problem . . ."
 
2012-06-18 10:36:19 AM

unlikely: Weaver95: but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?

I think that comes from the non-monolithic nature both of the parties and of the people. What some people consider an abuse other people think is an obvious protection. Legalizing weed would be legalizing murder in some people's minds, and those people are pretty vocal with their reps.


Let's not forget the alcohol industry would get peeved at someone upsetting their monopoly on getting you bent legally. Major brewing companies have long been opponents to drug law reform.
 
2012-06-18 10:38:57 AM

unlikely: Weaver95: but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?

I think that comes from the non-monolithic nature both of the parties and of the people. What some people consider an abuse other people think is an obvious protection. Legalizing weed would be legalizing murder in some people's minds, and those people are pretty vocal with their reps.


And those people are wrong. But that's not my point. my point is that we've already got an intrusive/ touchy-feely government that (in some cases literally) wants to get in our pants. everything from using drones to track us, to spying on our email to TSA gate rape - every day we run a gauntlet of invasive government monitoring. And we all complain about it to our Congressthings...but somehow, none of our complaints are ever addressed. And when things DO change, it's always for the worse. Funny how that works, isn't it?
 
2012-06-18 10:39:54 AM

Nabb1: unlikely: Weaver95: but we both know that isn't going to happen. sure, both parties pretend that they care about protecting 'we the people' from the big bad federal government...but nobody seems to be able to actually STOP the abuses. there's always an excuse, isn't there?

I think that comes from the non-monolithic nature both of the parties and of the people. What some people consider an abuse other people think is an obvious protection. Legalizing weed would be legalizing murder in some people's minds, and those people are pretty vocal with their reps.

Let's not forget the alcohol industry would get peeved at someone upsetting their monopoly on getting you bent legally. Major brewing companies have long been opponents to drug law reform.


Well, that and the paper industry, the oil industry, cotton and even the nice folks who raise corn, and of course, the folks who are making a killing on seizure assets auctions...
 
2012-06-18 10:41:48 AM

unlikely: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

This is vaguely different. Had he issued an actual executive order or a signing statement saying to stop prosecution, pardon, or whatever any of those people (which he didn't, exactly), well, pardon is within his power.

The interesting question is if he had issued an actual pardon what effect it would have on the citizenship of those people. AND what effect it would have on the people who DIDN'T get a pardon.


You can't pardon someone before they've been prosecuted. And even if the President pardoned someone for an immigration violation, they would still not be a citizen. The President cannot grant citizenship, which is why the DHS directive at question does not offer any sort of amnesty or "path to citizenship".
 
2012-06-18 10:42:54 AM

Demetrius: That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by and also for "signing statements".


Are you saying this ship has sailed? The bus left the station? No need to shut the barn door after the horses left?

It does seem to be used more and more for substantive stuff though. Between Bush and Obama, we have an ever expanding executive power.
 
2012-06-18 10:43:25 AM
And a legislature willing to expand the executive power. Just look at the Iraq War authorization.
 
2012-06-18 10:51:04 AM

I_C_Weener: Demetrius: That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by and also for "signing statements".

Are you saying this ship has sailed? The bus left the station? No need to shut the barn door after the horses left?

It does seem to be used more and more for substantive stuff though. Between Bush and Obama, we have an ever expanding executive power.


And the next president will only continue to abuse that authority.
 
2012-06-18 10:52:38 AM
The DHS estimated in 2011 that it would cost roughly 137 billion dollars to deport 11 million undocumented aliens. Plus, it takes a long time to process that many people. So, obviously, deporting everyone in one shot is unfeasible and extraordinarily expensive. That's why the DHS has the leeway to prioritize who to deport. Why are we burning through time and money to deport the guy who got here when he was 2 and lived here and went to college here when that money is probably better spent being used to deport the guy who has criminal convictions in his record?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-18 10:55:05 AM
It looks to me that this is equivalent to a police department policy of not writing traffic tickets to drivers unless they are at least MPH over the limit. There isn't a law authorizing it, but it is perfectly legal to exercise discretion.
 
2012-06-18 10:56:16 AM

Weaver95: I_C_Weener: Demetrius: That would pretty much be the same for executive orders issued by and also for "signing statements".

Are you saying this ship has sailed? The bus left the station? No need to shut the barn door after the horses left?

It does seem to be used more and more for substantive stuff though. Between Bush and Obama, we have an ever expanding executive power.

And the next president will only continue to abuse that authority.


Yep. Unless the legislature grows up and takes back its authority, and we have a showdown on that, the president has no incentive to not use whatever means necessary to get around Congress.

The slow crawl toward a Roman style "democracy".
 
2012-06-18 10:58:51 AM

I_C_Weener: It does seem to be used more and more for substantive stuff though. Between Bush and Obama, we have an ever expanding executive power.


I haven't seen much expansion of specifically the executive branch under Obama at all. Could you clarify?
 
2012-06-18 11:00:49 AM

RexTalionis: The DHS estimated in 2011 that it would cost roughly 137 billion dollars to deport 11 million undocumented aliens. Plus, it takes a long time to process that many people. So, obviously, deporting everyone in one shot is unfeasible and extraordinarily expensive. That's why the DHS has the leeway to prioritize who to deport. Why are we burning through time and money to deport the guy who got here when he was 2 and lived here and went to college here when that money is probably better spent being used to deport the guy who has criminal convictions in his record?


I think the GOP wants bigger government so they can process more deportations.
 
2012-06-18 11:01:25 AM

keylock71: That's what passes for a "compelling argument" over at CNS, eh?


The compelling part is the outright lie in the headline and the article!!!
 
2012-06-18 11:09:55 AM

Weaver95: Funny how that works, isn't it?


For some definitions of funny. On this matter I agree with you; I was just trying to figure out the other side of it, trying to understand why that one element goes the other way.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:00 AM

Nabb1: Let's not forget the alcohol industry would get peeved at someone upsetting their monopoly on getting you bent legally. Major brewing companies have long been opponents to drug law reform.


My first impression was "What? No way. Really?" and then I spent 30 seconds on the googles. I had no idea. I'm off to spend more time trying to understand this one.
 
2012-06-18 11:21:56 AM
That's not even motherfarking CLOSE to "compelling". The only "compelling" part of it is that there are human beings who read that and said "HE'S RIGHT".
 
2012-06-18 11:25:20 AM

Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.


As a general rule, WND coming out against something is like +50 points in favor of it actually being a great idea and helping people. It's like the opposite of the Klan endorsing a senate candidate.

Sometimes you can beat out that +50 bump with some genuine bullshiat and throw something back into the "WHOA, BAD" pile, but that's not often.
 
2012-06-18 11:26:22 AM

I_C_Weener: The slow crawl toward a Roman style "democracy".


NO. NEVER AGAIN. I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO SCRAWL MY VOTE ON PIECES OF BROKEN POTTERY.
 
2012-06-18 11:44:10 AM

kingoomieiii: I_C_Weener: The slow crawl toward a Roman style "democracy".

NO. NEVER AGAIN. I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO SCRAWL MY VOTE ON PIECES OF BROKEN POTTERY.


Get with the times. We now use pieces of old Tupperware and erasable markers.
 
2012-06-18 12:21:46 PM

kingoomieiii: Nabb1: Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...

Some have complained about it before, but you're right. We should just accept it and not complain as all objection has lost all validity because the loons at WND have picked up on it.

As a general rule, WND coming out against something is like +50 points in favor of it actually being a great idea and helping people. It's like the opposite of the Klan endorsing a senate candidate.

Sometimes you can beat out that +50 bump with some genuine bullshiat and throw something back into the "WHOA, BAD" pile, but that's not often.


Blind squirrel, occasional nut, enough monkeys with typewriters, works of Shakespeare, etc., etc.
 
2012-06-18 01:01:44 PM
0bama lied on Friday by not being honest that this includes people who have committed crimes.
 
2012-06-18 01:14:50 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama lied on Friday by not being honest that this includes people who have committed crimes.


who is this '0ama' person you keep talking about anyways?
 
2012-06-18 01:18:22 PM

Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama lied on Friday by not being honest that this includes people who have committed crimes.

who is this '0ama' person you keep talking about anyways?


Zero-Ama is the Annointed Boddhisatva of DERP...
 
2012-06-18 01:26:03 PM

Weaver95: the past four US presidents have used signing statements and executive orders to bypass the 'rule of law'. it's a little late to complain about it now guys...


Especially since they aren't holding office currently.

Saying Oh it's cool because someone else did it isn't really enthusiastic support. I wouldn't think many people would consider his actions here as a good thing except for the non-citizens it temporarily benefits short term.
 
2012-06-18 01:26:04 PM
CNS News ✓
World Net Daily ✓
Daily Caller ✓
Townhall ✓
American Thinker
Breitbart
The Blaze
 
2012-06-18 01:27:06 PM

Petit_Merdeux: Just wait 'til these guys hear about presidential pardons.


Obama pardoned these three guys... Im thinking they were his suppliers.

_ Lesley Claywood Berry Jr. of Loretto, Ky., sentenced in 1988 to three years in prison for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana.

_ Dennis George Bulin of Wesley Chapel, Fla., sentenced in 1987 to five years of probation and a $20,000 fine for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 pounds of marijuana.

_ Ricky Dale Collett of Annville, Ky., sentenced in 2002 to one year of probation for aiding and abetting in the manufacture of 61 marijuana plants.
 
2012-06-18 01:27:46 PM

Mildot: Obama pardoned these three guys


Good.
 
2012-06-18 01:28:03 PM

Petit_Merdeux: Just wait 'til these guys hear about presidential pardons.


This guy ^
 
2012-06-18 01:28:17 PM
The left doesn't care about the rule of law. History shows us the only place it ends is totalitarianism. How is this surprising. Cue liberals to say "But we are going to do it different this time.."
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report