Potential DHS shutdown.

[Stormdash]

I mean I'd tell you that that's a shit show of a comparison.

I'd point out why.

But what's the point?

The comparison I've used before is if George W. Bush had, having failed to get his plan for modest privatization of social security enacted as legislation, authored a memo announcing to the IRS, Treasury, and DOJ that they were to use their discretion over collection of FICA, and instead reimburse all taxpayers 2% from that for their own personal investment (in other words, enact his failed legislative intentions by executive action).

It would have been enjoined, and every court that heard it would have laughed his administration out.

[Vyxn]

I mean I'd tell you that that's a shit show of a comparison.

I'd point out why.

But what's the point?

your right a better comparison if a republican president decides not to enforce the minimum wage laws because now he isn't changing a law just not enforcing one

[Wells]

The comparison I've used before is if George W. Bush had, having failed to get his plan for modest privatization of social security enacted as legislation, authored a memo announcing to the IRS, Treasury, and DOJ that they were to use their discretion over collection of FICA, and instead reimburse all taxpayers 2% from that for their own personal investment (in other words, enact his failed legislative intentions by executive action).

It would have been enjoined, and every court that heard it would have laughed his administration out.

The difference being there was no justification for prosecutor discretion like what Obama has here. They simply are not able to deport everyone. We're able to collect FICA.

I swear, this isn't that damn complicated. His ability to enforce the law is limited, so he's ordering enforcement to be performed in the best manner possible.

- - - Updated - - -

your right a better comparison if a republican president decides not to enforce the minimum wage laws because now he isn't changing a law just not enforcing one

What would the justification be for that under prosecutorial justification?

[Vyxn]

The difference being there was no justification for prosecutor discretion like what Obama has here. They simply are not able to deport everyone. We're able to collect FICA.

I swear, this isn't that damn complicated. His ability to enforce the law is limited, so he's ordering enforcement to be performed in the best manner possible.

- - - Updated - - -



What would the justification be for that under prosecutorial justification?

because a precedent was set that a president can decide not to enforce laws he doesn't like just like what Obama decided to do he didn't like the law that if you enter the country illegally you get deported

[Stormdash]

The difference being there was no justification for prosecutor discretion like what Obama has here. They simply are not able to deport everyone. We're able to collect FICA.

His actions are far more extensive than "not deporting". He is making a categorical instruction not to deport (which in and of itself makes mock of the idea of "discretion", it's just a new rule to blanketly follow), but inferring from that instruction authority to affirmatively grant a new status on a renewable basis and eligibility for federal benefits. It's a substantive change in the immigration law of the United States, as discussed in Judge Hanen's order in his discussion of the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits; it's an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the executive.

[Wells]

because a precedent was set that a president can decide not to enforce laws he doesn't like just like what Obama decided to do he didn't like the law that if you enter the country illegally you get deported

He's not stopping the enforcement of the law. He's controlling the limited ability to enforce the law so that it occurs in what he deems the most efficient way for the resources available. We will still deport people. We just won't bother doing it to peaceful productive people when our resources are limited and there are more dangerous people out there.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Seems like a redundant system anyway. Not sure if it actually reduced or increased your agency clusterfuck, probably both...

[Wells]

His actions are far more extensive than "not deporting". He is making a categorical instruction not to deport (which in and of itself makes mock of the idea of "discretion", it's just a new rule to blanketly follow), but inferring from that instruction authority to affirmatively grant a new status on a renewable basis and eligibility for federal benefits. It's a substantive change in the immigration law of the United States, as discussed in Judge Hanen's order in his discussion of the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits; it's an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the executive.

The notion that prosecutorial discretion requires either acting in complete accordance with the legal penalties or ignoring the person entirely seems to me to be a rather absurd stance.

[Drsolders]

Seems like a redundant system anyway. Not sure if it actually reduced or increased your agency clusterfuck, probably both...

It's actually a better system... Why have 36 different agencies in different offices when you can combine them under one?

[Vyxn]

He's not stopping the enforcement of the law. He's controlling the limited ability to enforce the law so that it occurs in what he deems the most efficient way for the resources available. We will still deport people. We just won't bother doing it to peaceful productive people when our resources are limited and there are more dangerous people out there.

ok congress passes a law raising the minimum wage but because the republican president decides it will hurt to many small businesses he isn't going to enact the law to those small businesses and only major corporations making over 50 million a year has to. he is still enacting the law just to the very select few that he decides just like Obama is doing with deportations

[Stormdash]

The notion that prosecutorial discretion requires either acting in complete accordance with the legal penalties or ignoring the person entirely seems to me to be a rather absurd stance.

Sorry you don't understand it better, then. The authority to prosecute or not prosecute has no other implied power within it. "Since I'm going to not prosecute your violation of the law, I'm now going to shower upon you the benefits of a heretofore uninvented legal status" is not a rational formulation in any corner of American law or government.

[Adam Jensen]

There's not enough fear in that.
DHS is the guard on the wall, holding back the ever present threat of extremism from touching down in or native soil. Border patrol just keeps the illegals out.

They are the watchers on the wall, protecting us from grumpkins and snarks.

[Rukentuts]

Sorry you don't understand it better, then. The authority to prosecute or not prosecute has no other implied power within it. "Since I'm going to not prosecute your violation of the law, I'm now going to shower upon you the benefits of a heretofore uninvented legal status" is not a rational formulation in any corner of American law or government.

Denoting people as lower in line per our limited resources isn't rational?

[Cosmic Janitor]

It's actually a better system... Why have 36 different agencies in different offices when you can combine them under one?

It's questionable if all these agencies were neccessary in the first place and if they couldn't have been absorbed into the various other, already existing, organisations.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Sorry you don't understand it better, then. The authority to prosecute or not prosecute has no other implied power within it. "Since I'm going to not prosecute your violation of the law, I'm now going to shower upon you the benefits of a heretofore uninvented legal status" is not a rational formulation in any corner of American law or government.

Just reject his (Wells) premise because its flawed from the get go.

Prosecutorial discretion is saying "ya you were going 52 in a 50 MPH zone but I'm not going to give you a ticket".

Prosecutorial discretion is NOT saying "ya these 50 million illegal invaders are technically criminals but I'm going to make them citizens so can they can vote for me".

Its an abuse of power and do you know what proves that?

Because if you offer up amnesty under the conditions that no citizenship will ever be obtainable, no voting privileges will ever be granted, and no social services may ever be benefited from ...it gets rejected.

We could solve this right now by granting every illegal invader an unbreakable irreversible contract that says: you're free to live here, work here, pay taxes here, but no welfare, no voting, and no citizenship, EVER!

Why don't we just do that?

[Drsolders]

It's questionable if all these agencies were neccessary in the first place and if they couldn't have been absorbed into the various other, already existing, organisations.

Well i listed them last page and nearly everyone of them seems pretty important... The only one I could think of scrapping is maybe the Nuclear Incident Response Team and merge them with FEMA. I mean we kind of need a lot of these considering how large and diverse the US is. 300,000,000 people in an area almost as large as Europe, we have specific needs that many other individual countries wouldn't.

[Wells]

ok congress passes a law raising the minimum wage but because the republican president decides it will hurt to many small businesses he isn't going to enact the law to those small businesses and only major corporations making over 50 million a year has to. he is still enacting the law just to the very select few that he decides just like Obama is doing with deportations

Still not a viable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. There's nothing that allows you to stop enforcing bad laws. You however cannot enforce a law beyond your ability to enforce and the Executive gets to use discretion in that situation. Which is what we're in right now with immigration.

Sorry you don't understand it better, then. The authority to prosecute or not prosecute has no other implied power within it.

The entire doctrine of prosecutorial discretion is implied. If the Executive feels this is the most faithful and effective way to enforce the law then it falls under that doctrine.

"Since I'm going to not prosecute your violation of the law, I'm now going to shower upon you the benefits of a heretofore uninvented legal status" is not a rational formulation in any corner of American law or government.

More like, we can't deport you so we're going to bring you into the light of the law where you can be handled in a more safe and productive manner than simply pretending you don't exist. I mean really, wouldn't you guys rather we know who these people are if we can't afford to deport them all?

Prosecutorial discretion is NOT saying "ya these 50 million illegal invaders are technically criminals but I'm going to make them citizens so can they can vote for me".

Your numbers are bizarre.

[Vyxn]

Still not a viable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. There's nothing that allows you to stop enforcing bad laws. You however cannot enforce a law beyond your ability to enforce and the Executive gets to use discretion in that situation. Which is what we're in right now with immigration.


The entire doctrine of prosecutorial discretion is implied. If the Executive feels this is the most faithful and effective way to enforce the law then it falls under that doctrine.

More like, we can't deport you so we're going to bring you into the light of the law where you can be handled in a more safe and productive manner than simply pretending you don't exist. I mean really, wouldn't you guys rather we know who these people are if we can't afford to deport them all?



Your numbers are bizarre.

he is doing more then not enforcing a law he is giving them all the rights and perks of a American citizen but one and almost half of American citizens don't excersize that right to begin with
it is like not arresting a bank robber then allowing him to keep the money he stole and then give him more money

[Wells]

Because if you offer up amnesty under the conditions that no citizenship will ever be obtainable, no voting privileges will ever be granted, and no social services may ever be benefited from ...it gets rejected.

We could solve this right now by granting every illegal invader an unbreakable irreversible contract that says: you're free to live here, work here, pay taxes here, but no welfare, no voting, and no citizenship, EVER!

Why don't we just do that?

Probably something about being an affront to the entire "all are equal" thing we thing is pretty cool.

- - - Updated - - -

he is doing more then not enforcing a law he is giving them all the rights of a American citizen but one and almost half of American citizens don't excursive that right to begin with

He's giving them temporary status. This isn't a new status. Not something he just made up. They're simply been brought into the light of our immigration system if they choose to apply for such status.

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.

[Vyxn]

Probably something about being an affront to the entire "all are equal" thing we thing is pretty cool.

- - - Updated - - -



He's giving them temporary status. This isn't a new status. Not something he just made up. They're simply been brought into the light of our immigration system if they choose to apply for such status.

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.

they are going to be able to claim illegally earned income and then turn around and get a tax credit greater then the taxes that they will pay and go back three years of claims for that credit
It would be the same as allowing a drug dealer claim the money he earned selling drugs then get a tax credit back from the government three years worth