Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[Woodruff]

Even if he disagreed with that, what's wrong with giving all parties with a candidate the same funding?

In the past, the government has done this in various ways. They required each of the major TV stations to air equal time for each candidate, for example. That worked when there were only 3 stations. Now, it doesn't.

I would think this would still be easy enough to do. It would just require some sort of monitoring.

There is also a section of the US tax return that says you can choose or not choose to hav $1 of your already paid taxes diverted to the presidential campaign fund. This is the fund that you may have heard about, which some recent candidates have not accessed because the money comes with certain limits.

Right, to my mind, this is where the "equal funding" would come from. As far as oversight, again, it would seem to be pretty simple to oversee how much is spent by each candidate.

[PLAYER57832]

Even if he disagreed with that, what's wrong with giving all parties with a candidate the same funding?

In the past, the government has done this in various ways. They required each of the major TV stations to air equal time for each candidate, for example. That worked when there were only 3 stations. Now, it doesn't.

I would think this would still be easy enough to do. It would just require some sort of monitoring.

True, I probably misstated the problem somewhat. Its not so much that its difficult to monitor 100 stations. (dfficult, but yes, surely possible), its that people have so many other sources of information, there is far less chance that they will actually see all the perspectives even if they are presented.

Also, PACs have distorted what is "candidate information" and what is not. There are no limits on topic advertising, so naturally all the PACs have nicely packaged "pur topic" advertisements that just happen to mention a candidate as a by-reference.

There is also a section of the US tax return that says you can choose or not choose to hav $1 of your already paid taxes diverted to the presidential campaign fund. This is the fund that you may have heard about, which some recent candidates have not accessed because the money comes with certain limits.

Right, to my mind, this is where the "equal funding" would come from. As far as oversight, again, it would seem to be pretty simple to oversee how much is spent by each candidate.[/quote]
Except the money available from that fund is rather limited so that many candidates have recently funded their own campaigns. As I understand it, that also allows them to avoid certain other spending and contribution limits.

[patches70]

There is also a section of the US tax return that says you can choose or not choose to hav $1 of your already paid taxes diverted to the presidential campaign fund. This is the fund that you may have heard about, which some recent candidates have not accessed because the money comes with certain limits.

Hey! The public financing option. If people would recall, Obama back in the day promised to use the public fund to keep special interests and such from influencing him. Obama then broke his promise and went the private route. Heh heh, it was funny, he was breaking campaign promises even before he was elected and people get offended when Obama is called a liar. He is a liar and completely untrustworthy, he proved it right from the outset.

McCain, however, went the public fund route and was outraised by Obama by some crazy 4 to 1 or more and McCain lost. Not that McCain would have won anyway, but it kind of puts a damper on the feasibility of the public funding to be relied on to provide all the needed cash to win a national election. The regulations on using those funds are pretty stringent (hence part of the reason for Obama to break his promise).

For little local elections it's a good way for Joe Nobody to run for office, but if you are trying to be President, you ain't gonna win using public money.......

[Woodruff]

Also, PACs have distorted what is "candidate information" and what is not. There are no limits on topic advertising, so naturally all the PACs have nicely packaged "our topic" advertisements that just happen to mention a candidate as a by-reference.

Yes...without question, PACs do pose a problem there. However, once we can again make it so that money doesn't equal free speech, perhaps that won't be an issue.

There is also a section of the US tax return that says you can choose or not choose to hav $1 of your already paid taxes diverted to the presidential campaign fund. This is the fund that you may have heard about, which some recent candidates have not accessed because the money comes with certain limits.

Right, to my mind, this is where the "equal funding" would come from. As far as oversight, again, it would seem to be pretty simple to oversee how much is spent by each candidate.

Except the money available from that fund is rather limited so that many candidates have recently funded their own campaigns. As I understand it, that also allows them to avoid certain other spending and contribution limits.

My point would be that they wouldn't be given that option.

[Woodruff]

There is also a section of the US tax return that says you can choose or not choose to hav $1 of your already paid taxes diverted to the presidential campaign fund. This is the fund that you may have heard about, which some recent candidates have not accessed because the money comes with certain limits.

Hey! The public financing option. If people would recall, Obama back in the day promised to use the public fund to keep special interests and such from influencing him.

Believe me, we remember.

Heh heh, it was funny, he was breaking campaign promises even before he was elected and people get offended when Obama is called a liar.

I don't believe I know ANYONE who gets offended by that, to be honest.

McCain, however, went the public fund route and was outraised by Obama by some crazy 4 to 1 or more and McCain lost. Not that McCain would have won anyway

McCain lost because of Palin, in my view. That, and his poor record in supporting the military. Honestly, I don't at all believe he lost because of the money. However, to put a point on what you're talking
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/ ... uy_in_2008

but it kind of puts a damper on the feasibility of the public funding to be relied on to provide all the needed cash to win a national election. The regulations on using those funds are pretty stringent (hence part of the reason for Obama to break his promise).

That's why they'd be required to use it. <smile>

[spurgistan]

As I recall, McCain was (sort of ironically) not going to take the public elections money either. The only way to get a big-time candidate to take public money is if you have assurances the other one won't, kinda like what happened in my old homestead with Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren declining PAC money.

[GreecePwns]

To be fair, if you put any Republican up for the election in 2008, they would have lost. The economy + first black president hype + war anger would've been to must to overcome, even on even financial grounds. McCain didn't lose because of Palin and money, he got destroyed in the electoral vote because of Palin and money.

Either way, in a publically financed campaign, forget any restrictions being placed on what the money can be used for. If the candidate wants to use the money to buy fancy-shmancy outfits, let them do so. Their loss. They'd have less to spend on advertising.

[Night Strike]

Punishing law enforcement instead of criminals:

A veteran Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is facing suspension after he refused to release an illegal immigrant who was not considered a priority target under the Obama Administration’s new immigration enforcement policies, according to documents provided exclusively to Fox News.

“They’re punishing law enforcement officers who are just trying to uphold U.S. law,” said Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council. Crane is a union representative acting on the unidentified officer’s behalf.

The officer under fire is an 18-year law enforcement and military veteran.

On March 27 he and another officer were conducting surveillance on a vehicle in Newark, Del. with plates that were registered to a criminal alien target. During the surveillance, they observed an individual get into the vehicle. The person was detained, questioned and taken to an ICE office so that his fingerprints could be run through a federal database.

The individual was not their criminal alien target. However, he was a 35-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who had ten previous traffic violations – including driving without a license.

“The officer made the determination using prosecutorial discretion that he would charge (the suspect) as being in the United States illegally and let the judge sort it out,” Crane said.

“That’s our place in the universe,” he said. “We’re supposed to make arrests and let the judges and the legal system sort through the details.”

Instead, two supervising officers, including the acting field director, intervened and ordered the officer to release the illegal immigrant. The acting field director sat down with the illegal and explained that he was going to be let go because he was not a “presidential priority,” Crane said.

In essence, the supervising officers took on the role of a public defender.

“You had the supervisors intervening with the alien to assist the alien and counsel the alien on avoiding receiving a charging document,” he said.

The officer’s supervisors ordered the officer to release the illegal – an order the officer refused.

According to a “Notice of Proposed Suspension,” dated July 19, the officer “failed to follow these supervisory instructions, when you arrested a non-targeted alien who did not appear to meet any of the ICE priorities.”

A memorandum from Assistant Field Office Director David O’Neill, written the morning of the incident, reveals that the officers were told to release the subject even though he was in the country illegally.

The officer “became agitated and began to raise his voice and stated that he would not do as instructed,” O’Neill wrote in his memo.

As a result of disobeying the order to release a known criminal, the officer faces a three-day suspension and could ultimately lose his job and pension if he arrests another illegal not on the Obama administration’s priority list.

“They’re willing to take away their retirement, their job, their ability to support their families in favor of someone who is here illegally and violating our laws,” Crane told Fox News. “Right now (the Obama administration) is standing in the way of us enforcing the law by either taking a disciplinary action, threats of disciplinary action, or refusing to sign off on charging documents to put an illegal alien into immigration proceedings so a judge can sort it out.”

An ICE spokesman did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

Ironically, the illegal alien in this particular incident was given better treatment than an American citizen would have been in similar circumstances.

A spokesman for the Newark Police Dept. told Fox News that if an American had been stopped on the same charges – they would have been put in jail. The spokesman said officers would have let the judge sort out the details.

Crane said that’s the way it used to be – until President Obama loosened restrictions on illegal immigrants.

“Our hands are tied much more than your average police officer,” Crane said. “Normally an officer would have made an arrest like this, processed him, put the paper work in front of the supervisor and they would have signed off on it.”

At the heart of the issue are significant changes announced in June by the Dept. of Homeland Security. The new rules outlined how younger illegal immigrants could stay in the country and gain work permits through the use of “prosecutorial discretion.”

Crane said agents in the field disputed the idea of prosecutorial discretion.

“This whole prosecutorial discretion thing is a big lie,” he said. “The administration is trying to say it gives us more flexibility to release people. It’s garbage. These are orders – very clear orders that you will release people.”

The policy allows for discretion involving individuals who have not been convicted of a “felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and is not above the age of thirty.”

The illegal immigrant in this case had 10 traffic violations and is 35-years-old.

And it’s not the first time that ICE agents have found themselves frustrated by Obama’s new policy. Last month an illegal immigrant injured an officer during an attempted escape in El Paso. Assaulting a federal officer is considered a federal crime. However, because the suspect was not a priority target, he was released without any criminal or immigration charges.

“We can’t do anything anymore under these new guidelines,” he added. “

As a result, he said, an 18-year law enforcement veteran has to pay the price — and somewhere in the nation, a 35-year-old illegal immigrant is driving on a roadway without a license.

“If a law enforcement officer can’t perform routine enforcement functions, what do we have a law enforcement agency for,” Crane wondered.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... alien.html

[Woodruff]

Punishing law enforcement instead of criminals:

A veteran Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is facing suspension after he refused to release an illegal immigrant who was not considered a priority target under the Obama Administration’s new immigration enforcement policies, according to documents provided exclusively to Fox News.

“They’re punishing law enforcement officers who are just trying to uphold U.S. law,” said Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council. Crane is a union representative acting on the unidentified officer’s behalf.

The officer under fire is an 18-year law enforcement and military veteran.

On March 27 he and another officer were conducting surveillance on a vehicle in Newark, Del. with plates that were registered to a criminal alien target. During the surveillance, they observed an individual get into the vehicle. The person was detained, questioned and taken to an ICE office so that his fingerprints could be run through a federal database.

The individual was not their criminal alien target. However, he was a 35-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who had ten previous traffic violations – including driving without a license.

“The officer made the determination using prosecutorial discretion that he would charge (the suspect) as being in the United States illegally and let the judge sort it out,” Crane said.

“That’s our place in the universe,” he said. “We’re supposed to make arrests and let the judges and the legal system sort through the details.”

Instead, two supervising officers, including the acting field director, intervened and ordered the officer to release the illegal immigrant. The acting field director sat down with the illegal and explained that he was going to be let go because he was not a “presidential priority,” Crane said.

In essence, the supervising officers took on the role of a public defender.

“You had the supervisors intervening with the alien to assist the alien and counsel the alien on avoiding receiving a charging document,” he said.

The officer’s supervisors ordered the officer to release the illegal – an order the officer refused.

According to a “Notice of Proposed Suspension,” dated July 19, the officer “failed to follow these supervisory instructions, when you arrested a non-targeted alien who did not appear to meet any of the ICE priorities.”

A memorandum from Assistant Field Office Director David O’Neill, written the morning of the incident, reveals that the officers were told to release the subject even though he was in the country illegally.

The officer “became agitated and began to raise his voice and stated that he would not do as instructed,” O’Neill wrote in his memo.

As a result of disobeying the order to release a known criminal, the officer faces a three-day suspension and could ultimately lose his job and pension if he arrests another illegal not on the Obama administration’s priority list.

“They’re willing to take away their retirement, their job, their ability to support their families in favor of someone who is here illegally and violating our laws,” Crane told Fox News. “Right now (the Obama administration) is standing in the way of us enforcing the law by either taking a disciplinary action, threats of disciplinary action, or refusing to sign off on charging documents to put an illegal alien into immigration proceedings so a judge can sort it out.”

An ICE spokesman did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

Ironically, the illegal alien in this particular incident was given better treatment than an American citizen would have been in similar circumstances.

A spokesman for the Newark Police Dept. told Fox News that if an American had been stopped on the same charges – they would have been put in jail. The spokesman said officers would have let the judge sort out the details.

Crane said that’s the way it used to be – until President Obama loosened restrictions on illegal immigrants.

“Our hands are tied much more than your average police officer,” Crane said. “Normally an officer would have made an arrest like this, processed him, put the paper work in front of the supervisor and they would have signed off on it.”

At the heart of the issue are significant changes announced in June by the Dept. of Homeland Security. The new rules outlined how younger illegal immigrants could stay in the country and gain work permits through the use of “prosecutorial discretion.”

Crane said agents in the field disputed the idea of prosecutorial discretion.

“This whole prosecutorial discretion thing is a big lie,” he said. “The administration is trying to say it gives us more flexibility to release people. It’s garbage. These are orders – very clear orders that you will release people.”

The policy allows for discretion involving individuals who have not been convicted of a “felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and is not above the age of thirty.”

The illegal immigrant in this case had 10 traffic violations and is 35-years-old.

And it’s not the first time that ICE agents have found themselves frustrated by Obama’s new policy. Last month an illegal immigrant injured an officer during an attempted escape in El Paso. Assaulting a federal officer is considered a federal crime. However, because the suspect was not a priority target, he was released without any criminal or immigration charges.

“We can’t do anything anymore under these new guidelines,” he added. “

As a result, he said, an 18-year law enforcement veteran has to pay the price — and somewhere in the nation, a 35-year-old illegal immigrant is driving on a roadway without a license.

“If a law enforcement officer can’t perform routine enforcement functions, what do we have a law enforcement agency for,” Crane wondered.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... alien.html

If I understand this situation correctly (and I admit I may not, so correct me where I'm wrong)...this officer acted appropriately in my opinion UNTIL he went directly against the orders of his supervisor (who were also acting under the guidelines for prosecutorial discretion). It seems to me that he is being suspended for not following orders, not for not releasing the illegal alien.

[AndyDufresne]

Woodruff, you aren't supposed to read with logic like that?!!?


--Andy

[Night Strike]

If I understand this situation correctly (and I admit I may not, so correct me where I'm wrong)...this officer acted appropriately in my opinion UNTIL he went directly against the orders of his supervisor (who were also acting under the guidelines for prosecutorial discretion). It seems to me that he is being suspended for not following orders, not for not releasing the illegal alien.

Right, he's technically being punished for not following the order. However, don't we always hear (at least in the context of the military) that people should not follow an unlawful order? All this agent is doing is following the letter of the law, and his supervisor is telling him to completely ignore that law. And prosecutorial discretion doesn't lie with the cops anyway: it's the prosecutors who have that discretion (hence the name). The entire point of my post though is that this is the problem with these new, unlawful directives from the Obama administration: they are enacting amnesty without Congressional approval.

[Woodruff]

If I understand this situation correctly (and I admit I may not, so correct me where I'm wrong)...this officer acted appropriately in my opinion UNTIL he went directly against the orders of his supervisor (who were also acting under the guidelines for prosecutorial discretion). It seems to me that he is being suspended for not following orders, not for not releasing the illegal alien.

Right, he's technically being punished for not following the order. However, don't we always hear (at least in the context of the military) that people should not follow an unlawful order?

How is it an unlawful order? It's following prosecutorial discretion (simply by the supervisor, rather than the officer himself), as you pointed out.

All this agent is doing is following the letter of the law, and his supervisor is telling him to completely ignore that law.

No, that's not quite true. The supervisor is telling him that they're going to use prosecutorial discretion not to deal with this particular individual. That is not ignoring the law.

And prosecutorial discretion doesn't lie with the cops anyway: it's the prosecutors who have that discretion (hence the name).

Incorrect. ICE, CBP and USCIS personnel are authorized to exercise their discretion. The action of a prosecutor is not necessary.

The entire point of my post though is that this is the problem with these new, unlawful directives from the Obama administration: they are enacting amnesty without Congressional approval.

They are enacting amnesty on individuals who would tie up our resources that could be better spent working on individuals that need to be removed from our country because of serious criminal problems. While I understand the argument you're making regarding amnesty, it's simply working smarter with what we have.

[Night Strike]

The illegal immigrant arrested in this story already had 10 traffic violations. Why should that person be allowed to remain in the country when they're obviously breaking other laws? Why do we have to permit lawlessness simply based on which country a person was from? As the officer stated, this illegal immigrant is being treated better than an American citizen all in the name of politics.

[Woodruff]

The illegal immigrant arrested in this story already had 10 traffic violations. Why should that person be allowed to remain in the country when they're obviously breaking other laws?

Because in the grand scheme of things, that's not really a big deal. It's not the sort of crime that is similar to burglary or something along those lines, in my opinon.

Why do we have to permit lawlessness simply based on which country a person was from? As the officer stated, this illegal immigrant is being treated better than an American citizen all in the name of politics.

I don't think we're "permitting lawlessness" by not sending these sorts of folks back to a country they possibly don't even remember living in. I fully support taking the individual into custody for those traffic violations and getting restitution. But to me, that's not the sort of thing that's important enough to be bothering to send him home for, when we have bigger fish to net. Priority use of resources.

[GreecePwns]

Not really on topic, but an interesting study in language and rhetoric: Freedom when I like it, lawlessness when I don't.

I will post no longer in this thread hopefully.