Obama’s unconstitutional and illegal seizure of powers from Congress is not to be allowed. During the Bush Administration, it was very common for persons to decry his “signing statements” and other unconstitutional extensions of his powers. Obama is doing the same, except his seizure of power is more egregious. While many expect a 4-4 tie, leaving in place this stay by the Texas judge, it could be that someone on the left might reign in the presidential royal degree system. I don’t believe we will see Kennedy shift to the left on this one.
What absolute bullshit.
The Executive Branch is charged with making the rules that enforce laws.
President Obama has amended those rules slightly to keep families from being ripped apart by deportations.
It’s called executve discretion, and it’s not only legal, it’s common.
Nothing he’s done is unconstitutional, and nothing he’s done usurps power from the do-nothing GOP-controlled Congress.
You continue to underwhelm.
Of course, if the court orders him to fully execute the deportation rules he’ll have to pull the money from other parts of the immigration enforcement budget. Maybe the part about inspecting stuff coming over the border…
I thank God for answered prayers!
We have been granted a do over and finally live up to the idea of the American Dream by welcoming those who have been our neighbors in our communities for the past 16 years.
Remember, it was under the GWB administration that we saw the influx of folks crossing the borders from Mexico. In fact, the GWB admin practically praised it, because their corporate favorites like the idea of continuing to stagnate wages in America! And President has every right to execute his power to fix this unjust anomaly, because the chicken shit congress are unwilling to move on any measures to address the reform immigration issue.
I like that the Conservative position has been crippled with the loss of their majority on SCOTUS.
The worst that can happen, I think, is a 4-4 tie allowing the Texas ruling to stand in that district, but without setting a precedence.
And with luck, maybe we get a 5-3 vote in favor of President Obama’s position.
There’s a difference between an executive order, which is a lawful action by the president, and a signing statement, which, in Bush’s case, meant, “I’ll sign this bill, but I don’t accept that it applies to me.”
Bush issued executive orders, too, by the way.
I’m certainly hoping for the latter outcome!
What a pile of reeking crap. So, in your town, let us say that the Police Chief published a statement: “Only speeding 20 MPH over the limit will be punished”. He would be out in a minute. And if he fired or disciplined officers who arrested those under his published limit, he would never work again. Obama, who has never passed up an opportunity to harm American workers, has done that. He and the ICE boss have disciplined ICE officers from doing their jobs. That’s why the ICE Union has endorsed Trump, who will no longer condone the criminals, felons, rapists, and other illegals that Obama’s policies have helped.
You do realize police don’t pull over every speeder. They use - what’s that called again - discretion.
Wow, what an amazingly clueless comment. Under Reagan, in 1986, amnesty was granted to that wave of criminal invaders. Of course, the promise was that the amnesty would stop the invaders. No such situation. We now have, again, another wave of criminals here. Not only from Mexico, but millions as visa overstays (like in this story). Obama will not defend the constitution, and continues his lies and refusal to actually defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic. This strengthens Trump and Cruz of course, but clueless liberals continue to miss the connection. They will not even try to find visa overstays. Visa overstays are of course quite famous. The Boston marathon bombers were both visa overstays, and many of the 9/11 terrorists were visa overstays. It is true that the fake university in New Jersey was a “visa overstay” operation, which netted 1040 visa overstays, here stealing IT/STEM jobs from Americans. Now we only need to find 3,990,000 more of these skunks.
And the POINT of my comment is that they DO NOT ANNOUNCE their failure to enforce. Obama has announced his refusal to perform the duty of enforcing the law. That’s the difference. Obama’s relentless hispandering has led him here. There is no law that will be upheld if Grijalva and Guittierez say “NO MAS” to Obama.
Are you really unaware police don’t pull over people going one mile over the limit?
You can only understand something if you actually want to understand it. Since your clueless comments continue that I have already addressed, it’s clear you are not reading for understanding.
I’m trying to understand your argument, but you make it difficult.
Is it that Obama should be apprehending every single undocumented immigrant or is it that he shouldn’t but he also shouldn’t announce that fact?
The oath of office states “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He is not fulfilling his oath. He has stated, publicly, that he will not enforce laws. And THAT is an impeachable offense.
Congress doesn’t appropriate enough funds to deport all illegals. It’s up to the president to determine how limited funding is best spent.
You might want to consider avoiding oxymoronic statements in arguing your position, they tend to distract attention from whatever validity your points might have. A dictionary might be of use also.
What is your definition of enforcing the law as it pertains to immigration knowing full well it’s impossible to evict every undocument immigrant?
Wouldn’t you agree choices have to be made? Discretion used?
There are huge problems with immigration. The system lacks sufficient immigration judges. It is filled with impediments which result in unjust outcomes.
But when you publicly announce your unwillingness to perform your job, you have crossed a line.
What should be done? A lot of things. When immigration judges reject a petition for asylum, that person should be deported immediately. Of course, Hillary and Bernie are now on record stating that they too will not enforce lawful decrees by immigration judges. Illegals should be given IMMEDIATE hearings, and should be immediately deported.
And visa overstays should be tracked and deported. Visa overstays are usually people good jobs in IT/STEM. They should be fined heavily and pay for their own departures. That’s what happens in the EU.