Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    He's giving them temporary status.
    Which if you said nothing else at all, would be all it would take to overstep any executive authority on the subject.

    This isn't a new status.
    Being a status which does not exist in the INA anywhere, it is by definition a new status, one created entirely within the executive department.

    Not something he just made up.
    It most certainly is. Again, the option not to prosecute* does not logically follow with the power to grant a legal status to. He can deport them or leave them in legal limbo, that's it.

    *Judge Hanen's opinion discusses the possibility that "discretion" may not even apply to DAPA, since the INA says anyone in the country without being admitted shall be treated as applicants for admission, and the laws pertaining to how applicants are processed are pretty far from discretionary, a lot of "shall", not so much "may".

    This means that we'll have information about the illegal immigrants that are here that we're not prioritizing for deportation. That's a good thing.
    Whether it's a good thing or not is a) open to debate, and b) doesn't change the fact that it's Congress' "thing", not the President's. Which he has said himself nearly two dozen times during his administration. I'm curious -- was he lying those 22 times, or was he just ignorant of his own authority that he must have had this whole time?

  2. #42
    Can you cite the law he's violating by granting temporary status?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Which if you said nothing else at all, would be all it would take to overstep any executive authority on the subject.



    Being a status which does not exist in the INA anywhere, it is by definition a new status, one created entirely within the executive department.



    It most certainly is. Again, the option not to prosecute* does not logically follow with the power to grant a legal status to. He can deport them or leave them in legal limbo, that's it.

    *Judge Hanen's opinion discusses the possibility that "discretion" may not even apply to DAPA, since the INA says anyone in the country without being admitted shall be treated as applicants for admission, and the laws pertaining to how applicants are processed are pretty far from discretionary, a lot of "shall", not so much "may".



    Whether it's a good thing or not is a) open to debate, and b) doesn't change the fact that it's Congress' "thing", not the President's. Which he has said himself nearly two dozen times during his administration. I'm curious -- was he lying those 22 times, or was he just ignorant of his own authority that he must have had this whole time?
    There's nothing new in this post. A status is necessary to deem who is a lower priority. This lower courts ruling will most likely be overturned. Actual legal experts were surprised by it. Don't you want violent criminals deported first? And townhall.com doesn't seem like my cup of tea.

  4. #44
    Sure --

    Slightly smartass answer?

    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
    Art I, Section 1, US Constitution

    More specific and on point answer?

    ... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
    Art II, Section 3, US Constitution

    Judge Hanen's order was issued in part on his finding that the DHS deferred action at the behest of the President violates both the Take Care clause and the separation of powers.

    So it's not a matter of him violating a statute, but of him violating the Constitution.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Sure --

    Slightly smartass answer?



    Art I, Section 1, US Constitution

    More specific and on point answer?



    Art II, Section 3, US Constitution

    Judge Hanen's order was issued in part on his finding that the DHS deferred action at the behest of the President violates both the Take Care clause and the separation of powers.

    So it's not a matter of him violating a statute, but of him violating the Constitution.
    And how did he break this? Designating higher priority targets doesn't mean he's not "executing" the laws. Republicans are mad for literally no rational reason other than the Hispanics like it.

  6. #46
    Oh man I was hopping for something better than that. His administration feels that temporary legal status is a more faithful execution that simply pretending they're not there. It could be revoked at any time. They're still eligible for deportation.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Probably something about being an affront to the entire "all are equal" thing we thing is pretty cool.
    You think you can just say that and somehow it justifies a foreign invasion, but it doesn't.

    Go take that mentality to Mexico when you illegally penetrate their borders and see how it all works out.
    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  8. #48
    Those of you bashing the DHS as "wholly-ineffective" need to stop painting in such broad strokes.

    As a proud member of the U.S. Coast Guard I can assure you that there are some worthwhile things being done under the DHS banner. I won't speak for the rest of the department, but to say "get rid of all of it" is sort of ignorant.

    Now if you want to argue that agencies like the USCG could be put under other departments (as the USCG was before the creation of DHS), then that's another argument. But I've got a bone to pick with anyone who says the department as a whole is useless.

  9. #49
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Oh man I was hopping for something better than that. His administration feels that temporary legal status is a more faithful execution that simply pretending they're not there. It could be revoked at any time. They're still eligible for deportation.
    They aren't "eligible for deportation". They're scheduled to be deported. They're just low on the priority list because they're not criminals and so forth. Giving them a temporary legal status to cover them between "now" and "when they get deported" allows them to be productive members of society in that interim, when the only other available option would be "pretend they don't exist".

    They can't just up and deport them. Because they don't have the resources to do so. If they did, this wouldn't be happening.


  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Can you cite the law he's violating by granting temporary status?
    he is in violating the constitution and the separation of powers congress creates laws the executive brank enforces said law it is pretty simple the president doesn't have the authority to change the law or add to them yes you can argue that he has the discretion not to enforce the law on all but he went way beyond that by giving them status and benefits as if they entered legally
    Last edited by Vyxn; 2015-02-23 at 06:18 AM.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Zombergy View Post
    You think you can just say that and somehow it justifies a foreign invasion, but it doesn't.

    Go take that mentality to Mexico when you illegally penetrate their borders and see how it all works out.
    Its not an invasion. Its an immigration problem. Granted you also seem to think the number of illegals is roughly 5 times what it actually is soooo...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    he is in violating the constitution and the separation of powers congress creates laws the executive brank enforces said law it is pretty simple the president doesn't have the authority to change the law r add to them yes you can argue that he has the discretion not to enforce the law on all but he went way beyond that by giving them status and benefits as if they entered legally
    He didn't create a law, so I guess we're all good. The notion that prosecutorial discretion requires either enforcing the law or pretending you can't seem them is pretty stupid.

  12. #52
    Stood in the Fire Icathian's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    USA/Brazil
    Posts
    387
    Might as well be shutdown. America is way too paranoid about terrorist attacks when you're 100000x more likely to die from flu, car accident, being shot in a robbery etc than dying because of a terrorist attack.

    And just a note before people come attack me for that: Yes, terrorist attacks are bad, and definitely needs some attention. But not multiple govt bodies being paranoid over it, funneling billions over it.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderbleem View Post
    Those of you bashing the DHS as "wholly-ineffective" need to stop painting in such broad strokes.

    As a proud member of the U.S. Coast Guard I can assure you that there are some worthwhile things being done under the DHS banner. I won't speak for the rest of the department, but to say "get rid of all of it" is sort of ignorant.

    Now if you want to argue that agencies like the USCG could be put under other departments (as the USCG was before the creation of DHS), then that's another argument. But I've got a bone to pick with anyone who says the department as a whole is useless.
    I'd wager most people don't even know the USCG is under DHS now.. sadly. thanks for what ya do though!
    Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    They aren't "eligible for deportation". They're scheduled to be deported. They're just low on the priority list because they're not criminals and so forth. Giving them a temporary legal status to cover them between "now" and "when they get deported" allows them to be productive members of society in that interim, when the only other available option would be "pretend they don't exist".

    They can't just up and deport them. Because they don't have the resources to do so. If they did, this wouldn't be happening.
    This is a fair distinction.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    And how did he break this? Designating higher priority targets doesn't mean he's not "executing" the laws. Republicans are mad for literally no rational reason other than the Hispanics like it.
    You could, y'know, read the order and its analysis for yourself.

    In part --

    ... The word "shall" is imperative and, regardless of whether or not it eliminates
    discretion, it certainly deprives the DHS of the right to do something that is clearly contrary to
    Congress' intent.

    That being the case, this Court finds that the presumption of unreviewability, even if
    available here, is also rebuttable under the express theory recognized by the Heckler Court. In
    Heckler, the Supreme Court indicated that an agency's decision to "'consciously and expressly
    adopt[] a general policy' that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory
    responsibilities," would not warrant the presumption of unreviewability. 470 U.S. at 833 n.4
    (citing Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).82
    Since Heckler and Adams, it has clearly been the law that "[r]eal or perceived inadequate
    enforcement of immigration laws does not constitute a reviewable abdication of duty." See
    Texas, 106 F.3d at 667. That is not the situation here. This Court finds that DAPA does not

    simply constitute inadequate enforcement; it is an announced program of non-enforcement of the
    law that contradicts Congress' statutory goals.
    Unlike the Government's position in Texas v.
    In Adams, as noted above in the abdication discussion, the agency-defendants (including executive officials of
    Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW» were sued for not exercising their duty to enforce Title VI of the Civil
    Rights Act because they had not been taking appropriate action to end segregation in schools receiving federal
    funds, as required by the Act. Defendants insisted that enforcement of Title VI was committed to agency discretion
    and thus that their actions were unreviewable. The Court first noted that the agency-discretion-exception in the APA
    is a narrow one, citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park. It found that the statute provided "with precision the
    measures available to enforce" Title VI and thus the terms of the statute were "not so broad as to preclude judicial
    review." Like Defendants here, the defendants in Adams relied on cases in which courts declined to interfere with
    exercises of prosecutorial discretion. Rejecting defendants' reliance on those cases, the court emphasized: "[t]hose
    cases do not support a claim to absolute discretion and are, in any event, distinguishable from the case at bar."
    Unlike the cases cited, Title VI required the agency to enforce the Act and also set forth specific enforcement
    procedures. The INA removal provisions at issue here are no different and, like those at issue in Adams, are not so
    broad as to preclude review.
    Emphasis added

    Elsewhere --

    "Shall" indicates a
    congressional mandate that does not confer discretion-i.e., one which should be complied with
    to the extent possible and to the extent one's resources allow. s1 It does not divest the Executive
    Branch of its inherent discretion to formulate the best means of achieving the objective, but it
    does deprive the Executive Branch of its ability to directly and substantially contravene statutory
    commands. Congress' use of the term "may," on the other hand, indicates a Congressional grant
    of discretion to the Executive to either accept or not accept the goal.
    In the instant case, the DHS is tasked with the duty of removing illegal aliens. Congress
    has provided that it "shall" do this. Nowhere has Congress given it the option to either deport
    these individuals or give them legal presence and work permits.
    More...

    ...regardless of
    their mode of entry, DAPA putative recipients all fall into a category for removal and no
    Congressionally-enacted statute gives the DHS the affirmative power to turn DAPA recipients'
    illegal presence into a legal one through deferred action, much less provide and/or make them
    eligible for multiple benefits
    In the above situations, Congress has expressly given the DHS Secretary the discretion to
    grant or not grant an administrative stay of an order of removal. Thus, when Congress intended
    to delegate to the Secretary the right to ignore what would otherwise be his statutory duty to
    enforce the removal laws, it has done so clearly.

    See, e.g., F.CC v. NextWave Personal

    Communications, Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 302 (2003) (holding that when Congress has intended to
    create exceptions to bankruptcy law requirements, "it has done so clearly and expressly");

    Franklin Nat 'I Bank v. New York, 347 U.S. 373, 378 (1954) (finding no indication that Congress
    intended to make the phase of national banking at issue there subject to local restrictions, as it
    had done by express language in other instances); Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479,
    485 (1996) ("Congress . . . demonstrated in CERCLA that it knew how to provide for the

    93 recovery of cleanup costs, and ... the language used to define the remedies under RCRA does
    not provide that remedy.").
    The DHS cannot reasonably claim that, under a general delegation to establish
    enforcement policies, it can establish a blanket policy of non-enforcement that also awards legal
    presence and benefits to otherwise removable aliens.
    Sorry for the formatting, coming through copy/paste from a text version of a pdf. Plus even for those who do it, can get a little snowblind trying to parse through the citations to read the actual language of the opinion.

  16. #56
    I'd buy claims of nonenforcement if, you know, we weren't still deporting people left and right.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    They aren't "eligible for deportation". They're scheduled to be deported. They're just low on the priority list because they're not criminals and so forth. Giving them a temporary legal status to cover them between "now" and "when they get deported" allows them to be productive members of society in that interim, when the only other available option would be "pretend they don't exist".

    They can't just up and deport them. Because they don't have the resources to do so. If they did, this wouldn't be happening.
    entering the country unauthorized is an illegal act doing so is breaking the law the definition of being a criminal
    Last edited by Vyxn; 2015-02-23 at 06:22 AM.

  18. #58
    We are all aware courts have had their own awful version of reality because partisanship. Thankfully we have appeals courts that will overturn this example.

    Obama implemented a literally by definition common sense order. Why do people hate it outside of dems like it?

  19. #59
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    entering the country is an illegal act doing so is breaking the law the definition of being a criminal
    Yeah, no. This is a straight-up lie. Not true, at all.

    Evading border security is a crime. Being an undocumented immigrant is not.


  20. #60
    Well I mean they're going to shop around for the court they feel is going to give them the best shot. Everyone does.

    But yeah I can't see it surviving appeals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •