Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Oh, ok. I misread. So it temporarily moves the arbitrary citizenship status from birth to late childhood. Illegal or not, it's a smooth move.

No, all people born in the US are still citizens. He's arbitrarily changing the standards on which illegal immigrants could get deported.

He's certainly not doing it arbitrarily. He knows why he's doing it. But what he has done is practically legalize those immigrants for a little while without using that exact language.

And Obama does not have the power to do that. In fact, as the administration has been arguing in their suit of Arizona, only Congress can make immigration and naturalization policies. It's actually written directly in the Constitution.

Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

Neoteny wrote:Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

It wasn't even an executive order. It was a memo instructing homeland security as to who to deport and who not to deport.

Neoteny wrote: Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

what if they don't like him BECAUSE they're racist?

or what if it's his policies instead of the man himself?

Maybe it's the Constitution. Maybe our Congress makes laws, and not the president. Maybe???? Possible???

don't be ridiculous!

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

It wasn't even an executive order. It was a memo instructing homeland security as to who to deport and who not to deport.

It wasn't even a memo from D'ohbama, it was from Nappytano, so if shit goes wrong, the weasel can deny it was his idea, and blame it on Nappy and friends. Let's all admit that no one on either side of the aisle really gives a shit about immigration, except as a political tool. And this "plan" gives no pathway to citizenship. Basically Obammy and friends are screwing these kids by giving them nothing, yet making them (and more importantly,registered Hispanic voters) think he is helping the young illegals. Bullshit!! Every 2 years for the rest of their lives they will have to re-apply for a work visa if they wish to remain in the States. The foreign nationals that serve in the military should be given full citizenship upon completion of their first hitch. The rest, no. I do agree that we need to do something about the young mojados, but this isn't it.
I'm a gun carryin', pot smokin', politician hatin', mixed race independent that lives on the border, knowing that the politicians (both sides) are lyin' their asses off and most of you inlanders believe one side or the other. (which makes me doubt your intelligence) For those of you who spout the current Dem. bullshit spin about illegal immigration being down, while it is true that illegal Mexicans are down, the OTMs (Other Than Mexican) are taking up the slack. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, and China are now the top 5 countries for illegals coming in from Mexico. Here in the Valley, Border Patrol estimates 300+ mojados come across the river every day. (the true figure is likely 3-4 times that) For those of you who support the Repubs sealed border approach, well, that won't work either. Here in the RGV, most of us have family/friends/business just across the river. We don't want ya'll fuckin' round in our business. All I know is, the fucking government keeps making things worse. Let's let the people who live on the border make the decisions. Ya'll (NS, Phatty, Woody, huamulti, etc) are all talkin' out your asses with little to no knowledge of what conditions on the border really are, so why don't ya'll just shut the f*ck up. (TGD, Neo, and the couple other reasonable folks here, none of this is aimed at ya'll.)
Here is the full text for the (most) of you who haven't bothered to read it.
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentVie ... 3e50c279b5
And for those of you who advocate for open borders and amnesty for all illegals, I will be more than happy to find you a house to rent in a colonia here in the valley. I have a grand says you can't hang for a month. (actually, I can guarantee it.) So why don't ya'll STFU about shit you really don't understand, or truly care about, (much like the Feds) and let us folks who actually know what the situation is deal with it.

Peace out!!

True, but the main reason Illegal immigration is down is because of the economy.....

I didn't say anything about the border. I just said Obama acting around congress is unconstitutional, and something about Obama's motivation.

also, you think Neo's comment about people opposing this because Obama is black is "reasonable"????

I think you need to edit your post and put my name where Neo's is, and his where mine is!!!!

FYI, I have been to Texas and Arizona just in the last few months, and I will be in Texas again in July and in Florida in August. Doesn't make me an expert, but I am not completely clueless about how it is on the ground either. But I didn't make any comments you say I did anyways so....just FYI

huamulan wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Also, there was not a single vote against the States separating from England and becoming independent.

I think you know as well as everyone else that law-breaking does not cease to be law-breaking just because 'everyone does it'.

and......that includes illegal immigrants too...............right??????

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Congress and the President are historically always fighting. Then the Judiciary steps in and rules between them.. then either Congress writes new rules or the President uses his power in a different way... etc.

You want us ruled just by Congress, but that is not how the constitution sets it up.

It doesn't matter if they're always fighting or not. If Congress passes a law and the President signs it, the Executive Branch is responsible for carrying out that law until it is repealed. Congress IS supposed to be the most powerful branch of the federal government because it has the broadest representation of the people AND is itself split into two chambers for further division of power to keep from becoming too powerful. The President cannot pick and choose which laws he will enforce. To do so constitutes a blatant violation of the Constitution that the President took an oath to uphold.

not to mention (to player) that's exactly what Congress is there for, and that's exactly why we took the Congress away from the Democrats in 2010. Congress does make the laws, Congress does control the power of the purse, Congress is where the people are represented democratically. And that IS exactly how the Constitution sets it up, verbatim!

Power divided is power checked.

Player, be careful what you wish for. You want the president to have all this power, but I think you forget Obama will not be president forever. Do you really want a future President Santorum to have as much power as you are saying Obama should have?????? Better think about that...

Phatscotty wrote:

huamulan wrote:
I think you know as well as everyone else that law-breaking does not cease to be law-breaking just because 'everyone does it'.

and......that includes illegal immigrants too...............right??????

It does if the law ceases to consider their method of immigration 'illegal'.

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

It wasn't even an executive order. It was a memo instructing homeland security as to who to deport and who not to deport.

Oh, lol. That's what I get for getting my news from Fox news and The Blaze. So it is actually a matter of prosecutorial discretion, which has even more judicial precedence, and is super legal. It turns out that the memo explicitly states that it is not establishing or changing any laws, but is only affecting the focus of the DHS encouraging them to prosecute adult law breakers rather than those who came with their family as children.

Y'all are some racist motherfuckers using dictatorial hyperbole and coercion to inflict your skewed view of the Constitution on the unwilling people of America. If you guys had a conscience, I would tell you that you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Neoteny wrote:
Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

Congress can strike down any executive order at any time. Congress hasn't done that very often, but the President doesn't have the power to rule by fiat. Congress is the check.

Neoteny wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

It wasn't even an executive order. It was a memo instructing homeland security as to who to deport and who not to deport.

Oh, lol. That's what I get for getting my news from Fox news and The Blaze. So it is actually a matter of prosecutorial discretion, which has even more judicial precedence, and is super legal. It turns out that the memo explicitly states that it is not establishing or changing any laws, but is only affecting the focus of the DHS encouraging them to prosecute adult law breakers rather than those who came with their family as children.

Yes, I purposely cut out the racism-card-cop-out.

Just because the Obama administration makes a statement doesn't make that statement true. Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a specific person should be charged with a crime based on the evidence presented to the DA. Obama has instructed DHS to make a blanket decision to not charge a group of people even though he doesn't actually know the evidence surrounding each of their cases. That's a policy change and/or failure to carry out the law, not prosecutorial discretion.

We should probably start a revolution. I'll get in touch with our top commanders on the scoreboard.


--Andy

patches70 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

Congress can strike down any executive order at any time. Congress hasn't done that very often, but the President doesn't have the power to rule by fiat. Congress is the check.

This is true. And they probably would if it were an executive order. Hell, they might even be railroaded into challenging prosecutorial discretion by their mislead constituencies. But until that happens, the Obama administration's policy on this is legal, and not an act of executive fiat. There is no new law or or anything silly like that. DHS is just being discerning in choosing how to enforce deportation law, a policy with fairly extensive legal precedent.

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Apparently he does have the power to do that. I hear that supreme courts have seen this sort of thing before. Presidents have been doing this executive order thing for years, particularly with respect to current attempts at legislation. I think you guys just don't like the dude, and are scrambling for excuses to criticize him. It's either that or racism.

It wasn't even an executive order. It was a memo instructing homeland security as to who to deport and who not to deport.

Oh, lol. That's what I get for getting my news from Fox news and The Blaze. So it is actually a matter of prosecutorial discretion, which has even more judicial precedence, and is super legal. It turns out that the memo explicitly states that it is not establishing or changing any laws, but is only affecting the focus of the DHS encouraging them to prosecute adult law breakers rather than those who came with their family as children.

Yes, I purposely cut out the racism-card-cop-out.

Just because the Obama administration makes a statement doesn't make that statement true. Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a specific person should be charged with a crime based on the evidence presented to the DA. Obama has instructed DHS to make a blanket decision to not charge a group of people even though he doesn't actually know the evidence surrounding each of their cases. That's a policy change and/or failure to carry out the law, not prosecutorial discretion.

"Charge," "delay deportation for certain individuals who were brought into the country as children and most of whom are trying to achieve legal citizenship as the US is the only home they've ever known;" tomato, tomahto, right? The key word there is "delay." The requirements are still pretty restrictive, and is not permanent. Unless these people become legal, they will be deported. They will still be PUNISHED FOR THEIR CRIMES of having a family that moved here. Just, in the meantime, they have a little leniency to rectify the status they have been dealt. Most people with souls will be ok with this. It is not a policy change or failure to carry out a law. It is a change in perspective as to how the law will be prosecuted.

In before more lies, exaggerations, and fear-mongering about an imagined dictator under the deluded guise of PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION despite the fact that the constitutionality of the move has already been determined.

Neoteny wrote:Just, in the meantime, they have a little leniency to rectify the status they have been dealt. Most people with souls will be ok with this. It is not a policy change or failure to carry out a law. It is a change in perspective as to how the law will be prosecuted.

So the people who follow the Constitution and the rule of law now don't have souls? The president is not a dictator who gets to make decisions of law based on his feelings (or political expedience). And he also doesn't have the authority to change a blanket perspective on how a law will be carried out. If he doesn't want to carry out a law, he convinces Congress to repeal the law. The Rule of Law is not based on feelings but on a just and orderly society.

Neoteny wrote:In before more lies, exaggerations, and fear-mongering about an imagined dictator under the deluded guise of PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION despite the fact that the constitutionality of the move has already been determined.

How have you proven Constitutionality? First you claimed it was an executive order, yet it wasn't. Then you claimed it was prosecutorial discretion, which is isn't. It's a ruling by dictation and a failure to carry out the duties of the office of the president.

I wonder how tony defends Obama exercising executive privilege to try and impede the "Fast and Furious" investigation against Holder?

By Obama doing that, by implication Holder is assuredly guilty of knowing all about and ordering the "Fast and Furious" debacle which has put thousands of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug gangs and led to the deaths of 100's of people. All under Holder's direct orders.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

If Holder isn't guilty of lying to Congress, not knowing about or authorizing the "Fast and Furious" operation, then Obama should turn over all the documents requested by Congress.
Obama is worse than Bush when it comes to using (abusing) executive power. The President who promised "transparency" in government should be allowing the investigation to be complete, truthful and with all the facts. He should not be using executive privilege to shield one of his cronies from legal action and accounting for his actions.

I guess in some people's eyes, Obama can do no wrong.......

NS, the memo is not binding, it mentions the discretion of operatives multiple times, is not permanent, and all that other nonsense. It even says in the memo that the rules spelled out are not guaranteed (at the discretion of officer), and various other caveats are included. You, and other conservatives, are seizing on anything you can out of hatred of Obama, Mexicans, and the constitution, while uncleverly parroting mantras about DICTATORIALISM VS CONSTARTATIONS! It's legal in every sense of the word. If you want that changed, that's your prerogative, but your lies and distortions are disgusting.

Did you hear that Putin and Obama met at the G20 summit? I heard Putin was giving him tips on how to gain even more control while President, and how to come back for a few more terms. I found a series of damning evidence in the form of recent photos where you can obviously see some underhanded things taking place:

Spoiler

Damning indeed...


--Andy

Phatscotty wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Congress and the President are historically always fighting. Then the Judiciary steps in and rules between them.. then either Congress writes new rules or the President uses his power in a different way... etc.

You want us ruled just by Congress, but that is not how the constitution sets it up.

It doesn't matter if they're always fighting or not. If Congress passes a law and the President signs it, the Executive Branch is responsible for carrying out that law until it is repealed. Congress IS supposed to be the most powerful branch of the federal government because it has the broadest representation of the people AND is itself split into two chambers for further division of power to keep from becoming too powerful. The President cannot pick and choose which laws he will enforce. To do so constitutes a blatant violation of the Constitution that the President took an oath to uphold.

not to mention (to player) that's exactly what Congress is there for, and that's exactly why we took the Congress away from the Democrats in 2010. Congress does make the laws, Congress does control the power of the purse, Congress is where the people are represented democratically. And that IS exactly how the Constitution sets it up, verbatim!

Power divided is power checked.

Player, be careful what you wish for. You want the president to have all this power, but I think you forget Obama will not be president forever. Do you really want a future President Santorum to have as much power as you are saying Obama should have?????? Better think about that...

Funny how everything put out by the Democrats is "unconstitutional" and everything put out by the Republicans is either OK or something justified given the circumstances. I don't judge things that way.

The master of compounding Executive power were Reagan and Bush, not Obama. And Reagan DID very much start the surge in illegal immigration. But we have been over that territory many times. Not going to drive this thread there again.

Neoteny wrote:In before more lies, exaggerations, and fear-mongering about an imagined dictator under the deluded guise of PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION despite the fact that the constitutionality of the move has already been determined.

Of course, you are aware that Obama made the same argument himself that you are now calling lies and exaggerations and fear mongering? Are you aware?

huamulan wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

huamulan wrote:
I think you know as well as everyone else that law-breaking does not cease to be law-breaking just because 'everyone does it'.

and......that includes illegal immigrants too...............right??????

It does if the law ceases to consider their method of immigration 'illegal'.

but.....why should the law cease?

AndyDufresne wrote:Did you hear that Putin and Obama met at the G20 summit? I heard Putin was giving him tips on how to gain even more control while President, and how to come back for a few more terms. I found a series of damning evidence in the form of recent photos where you can obviously see some underhanded things taking place:

--Andy

Wow. We must have seen a different meeting. I heard it was more like a lecture. I will bet you that Putin is going to capitalize on Obama's weakness, and Russia invades someone right around election time (save this post!), because he will bet Obama does not have the balls to do anything. Obama already conceded this a few months ago, when he told the premier (russia #2 leader) that his hands are tied, and after the election he will be more free to do xyz. Basically, Obama spilled his guts and gave Putin the green light to do whatever he wants to. Idiot Obama doesn't even know that you aren't supposed to tell people your weaknesses, and certainly not tell fucking Russian leaders!!!!!!

See, Obama thought he was still operating under the "reset" as far as Russian relations go. But this whole time Putin knew that this was a huge blunder by Obama. Just like Egypt. Just like fast n furious (gun sales). Just like his stance with the Mexican president against Arizona's immigration law.

Blunder after blunder after blunder.