Obama bypasses Congress on immigration policy

[Powerboss]

Nothing's changed. There was no executive order.

Lets try this again. Please answer each question separately.

So if he also wants to choose another group of immigrants, he can do it as well?

And if he can do it with immigration law, what's stopping him from doing it in regards to any other law?

[Chachma v'Oz]

Lets try this again. Please answer each question separately.

So if he also wants to choose another group of immigrants, he can do it as well?

And if he can do it with immigration law, what's stopping him from doing it in regards to any other law?

The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to allocate resources in her department. It's up to Obama to either agree with her decision or not, and he agrees. That's true of any cabinet secretary.

[Powerboss]

And here is why you and your fellow leftists who agree with you are wrong.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [p638] the Congress from acting upon the subject.[n4] Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm..._0579_ZC2.html

[Powerboss]

The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to allocate resources in her department. It's up to Obama to either agree with her decision or not, and he agrees. That's true of any cabinet secretary.

Why do you keep dodging my questions?

So if he also wants to choose another group of immigrants, he can do it as well?

And if he can do it with immigration law, what's stopping him from doing it in regards to any other law?

[arfurvirus]

The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to allocate resources in her department. It's up to Obama to either agree with her decision or not, and he agrees. That's true of any cabinet secretary.

Show me where the constitutional powers that the Secretary of Homeland Security draws its power from even exists.

Let's start there.

[Chachma v'Oz]

And here is why you and your fellow leftists who agree with you are wrong.

There's only two things wrong with that argument. The president didn't do anything. It was the Sec'y of HS's decision. And even if it had been Obama's, he didn't do anything incompatible with the will of congress because congress expressed no will on the matter.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Show me where the constitutional powers that the Secretary of Homeland Security draws its power from even exists.

Let's start there.

I'm not on trial here, son. Take it up with your congressman.

[Powerboss]

There's only two things wrong with that argument. The president didn't do anything. It was the Sec'y of HS's decision.

She works for the Executive Branch therefore as head of the Executive Branch it most definitely is under his prevue and responsibility.

And even if it had been Obama's, he didn't do anything incompatible with the will of congress because congress expressed no will on the matter.

Wrong again. Congress expressed their will in current immigration law.


But, you keep dodging my questions, we'll try again:

So if he also wants to choose another group of immigrants, he can do it as well?

And if he can do it with immigration law, what's stopping him from doing it in regards to any other law?

[arfurvirus]

I'm not on trial here, son. Take it up with your congressman.

Ok, so you admit it doesn't exist. Thanks for making it simple. Son.

[Chachma v'Oz]

My Goodness. Were you this argumentative when it was 'Nother Daddy explaining the facts of life to you? Let me run out and get another case of weakness tissues for you two dainty flowers.

Maybe it's time for you to dig out that tattered copy you keep in your purses.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c...b6e28834-800wi

[Powerboss]

Chachi loses again.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Tell that to the 800,000 young immigrants who can now stop looking over their shoulders for a while.

[9ball8]

Wow, the executive isn't spending money to enforce all the laws? We should be shocked. But then we would need to also be ignorant.

Quote from audit summary of Immigration enforcement budgeting, link:
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_10-90_May10.pdf
"However, the budget planning process did not fully represent what ICE spent on IT in FY 2009. As a result, the OCIO has limited ability to proactively manage and administer all IT resources and assets."
-This was two years old, BTW.

But we can find something even older, regarding selective enforcement of legislation based on budget or impact decisions. "To effectuate this policy, President Reagan built upon the efforts of past presidents' by issuing executive orders designed to enhance executive branch management tools.9 Executive Order ("E.O.") No. 12,291, in particular, facilitated the Executive's control of the bureaucracy Through the Office of management and Budget ("OMB"), E.O. No. 12,291 imposed a number of requirements on executive agencies in promulgating new regulations and in reviewing existing ones."
These requirements included budget considerations and impact or effectiveness evaluations (iow, the law/regulation must do more good than harm). Reagan, in particular, used this EO to remove some teeth from EPA regulations. Link: http://www.repository.law.indiana.ed...ack%20funds%22

So, here we are. Resume the debate. But please keep the hypocrisy, revisionism, ignorance, cynicism and jaded evasions to a minimum.
Once I see all bills being passed with a business plan, benchmarks and audit requirements, then I would understand efforts to gut executive orders that play politics with the audit & budget process. Since I see no such effort from most all politicians -left or right- I'll assume the BS factor will rule the day. The executive will play this trick with legislation, sometimes based on economics, sometimes on crass political gain, sometimes a nauseating mixture of both.

[antiquity]

I'm not on trial here, son. Take it up with your congressman.

It was taken up by our congresspeople and they voted the 'Dream Act' down. So did or did not Obama or a member of his administration circumvent Congress?

[Powerboss]

Tell that to the 800,000 young immigrants who can now stop looking over their shoulders for a while.

You've just admitted that the ends justify the means. In the context of this debate you lose again. Go ahead and celebrate Obama's lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution, it just reflects poorly on you.

[antiquity]

Tell that to the 800,000 young immigrants who can now stop looking over their shoulders for a while.

Actually its not illegal aliens who will looking over their shoulders, it will be the people who try to use the system to gain legal status who will be looking over their shoulders as these illegals pass them by.

[Chachma v'Oz]

You've just admitted that the ends justify the means. In the context of this debate you lose again. Go ahead and celebrate Obama's lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution, it just reflects poorly on you.

Wow. You'll just make up anything to justify your position in your own mind, won't you. Must make it easier to get out of bed in the morning.

[9ball8]

It was taken up by our congresspeople and they voted the 'Dream Act' down. So did or did not Obama or a member of his administration circumvent Congress?

Yes, he did. For a brief history of why it is both legal and established practice, refer to post #33. I'm in disagreement with the practice, BTW. And I also seriously doubt you or any fellow non-liberals (or liberals, I'm ashamed to admit) would do a damn thing to change it.

[antiquity]

For political purposes you are right.

[Powerboss]

Wow. You'll just make up anything to justify your position in your own mind, won't you. Must make it easier to get out of bed in the morning.

Didn't make anything up. You have yet to establish any Constitutional argument for Obama's power grab. You are dodging questions and challenges and all you are left responding with is smarmy remarks.

Since you're dodging questions and all, I'd like you to also explain how this is good for the millions of unemployed Americans and the possibility of them not being hired due to someone hiring one of your cherished illegals in his place. Not that I expect you to answer but it's just worth noting in it's entirety what you are supporting and endorsing.