The Trump Administration Has Announced the End of DACA -- Unless Congress Can Act To Save It (recode.net)

The Trump administration said on Tuesday it plans to scrap a program that allows about 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children to stay and work in the country, shrugging off criticism from within the president's own party and prominent business figures. From a report: The Trump administration is essentially leaving Congress a six-month window of time to try to save it. The legal shield is known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and since its enactment in 2012, it has allowed roughly 800,000 undocumented young adults to live in the United States and obtain work authorizations every two years. [...] In practice, implementation is complicated. Those previously approved under DACA, with the permission to work in the United States, can continue to work without interruption until those approvals expire. And those who have already applied for protection or are seeking renewals will still have their applications considered by the U.S. government. For those whose permits are set to expire before March 5, 2018, though, the U.S. government will also allow them to renew their DACA status -- provided their applications are received before Oct. 5, 2017. Currently, there are about 201,000 young adults whose authorizations are set to expire this year, officials at the Department of Homeland Security explained Tuesday.

Tech giants like Apple, Facebook and Google are no doubt going to blast the Trump administration's decision: Last week, those executives joined more than 400 other business leaders in calling on the president to preserve DACA. Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change. Microsoft indicated that about 27 workers spanning fields like finance and sales would be hurt from Trump's move. Zuckerberg said, "This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it."

Comments

Global problem

[fluffernutter]

Funny how American companies not being able to find enough affordable workers is a 'global problem', yet people not being able to find clean drinking water, enough food to eat, and/or safety from violence and corrupt governments is a 'them' problem.

Re:Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, America should start giving poor countries some kind of foreign aid. How can America be so immoral?!

Re:Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of people for the work corporations require. What there is not is people that will work for the lower pay corporations desire.

Europe is being destroyed with the race to the bottom, much to the delight of the elite, wealthy, and virtual signalling celebrities in their 99.999% white communities of mansions.

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

Getting back to subject.

This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

Re:Global problem

[Brett Buck]

Why do you think that nobody cares about clean water and food? The problem is a local problem, solved by removing the people involved in preventing these things (which are otherwise easy to provide) from happening.

        If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items. That was the idea in Somalia, and it is the correct and probably only workable idea for accomplishing that. But some asshole on Slashdot would be on whining about "imperialism" or us trying to be the world's policemen, which would eventually stop it.

        Most people I know *do* care, deeply, about these situations, but also know that the things required to resolve them - the real solution, not some idiot idealistic hippie crap about a world without hate - would just bring us a world of grief from the various "more sophisticated" people of the world, who would rather have candlelight vigils and benefit concerts to make themselves feel better, but accomplish nothing.

Re:Global problem

[sl3xd]

If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items.

Obligatory Monty Python It actually illustrates the point pretty well -- the benefits are beside the point to many.

Re: Global problem

[dougdonovan]

they have to be legal but this is a no brainer.

Re:Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Trump gets rid of the Green Card Lottery. I don't understand why we give away 50000 green cards every year to people who may only have a high school degree.

Re:Global problem

[jellomizer]

The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law. DACA could be considered an executive action to not enforce an immigration law.
Obama had a decent (not perfect) track record of not crossing the line of Constitutionally but he did have to walk it, because of a congress who would refuse to do anything.

Re:Global problem

[Freedom Bug]

If Trump was really asking Congress to enact DACA, he would have written his order so that DACA would stop processing new applications in 6 months rather than stop processing new applications immediately.

Re: Global problem

[cayenne8]

100% agree. Trump's cuts to foreign aid are just incomprehensible.

How does he sleep at night? I guess on a big pile of money.

I'm having trouble reading the sarcasm level of your post, but, if you are actually being serious about this....we in the US have a LOT of money problems.

We have a huge deficit, and our money, well....is OUR money (taxpayers) and it would be much better spent on our own citizenry first.

Once we get things back to correct levels and take care of our citizens, then...we can think about aiding other countries.

You take care of things at home first.....

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.

Actually NO he does not have the choice on whether or not to enforce the law.

Remember the presidential oath?

To uphold the US Constitution.

And well, the constitution says the President will enforce the laws set forth by congress.

The executive order thing is a bit of a gray area, and recent presidents have really been pushing what can actually be done by presidential decree.

This is a big check on that overreach of power.

But no, the President does not have the power to pick and choose which laws he/she likes and will enforce technically. If the president could do that, it would unbalance the checks and balances our federal govt is set up to operate within.

Re: Global problem

[SirSlud]

Once we get things back to correct levels and take care of our citizens, then

Which will be never, since "correct levels" is a nebulous and impossible to define term.

And tax money isn't an allowance to citizens. It builds things everyone uses and services everyone uses, so pretending that it puts some people in front of others is overly simplistic at best or disingenuous at worst.

Re:Global problem

[mi]

The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.

One's "prosecutorial discretion" is another's "selective enforcement"... Be careful, what you wish for (or defend).

DACA could be considered an executive action to not enforce an immigration law.

In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.

Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?

Re:Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

Barry had a TERRIBLE record when it comes to the Constitution. He bombed american citizens without trial. He authorized the expansion of the NSA spying on US citizens. He gave exemptions to obmacare to his 'friends'. He gave a ton of money to Iran without Congress even knowing about it let alone approving it. The list goes on and on. He had a 'phone and a pen' and used it with little regards to the US Constitution.

Re: Global problem

[cayenne8]

And tax money isn't an allowance to citizens. It builds things everyone uses and services everyone uses, so pretending that it puts some people in front of others is overly simplistic at best or disingenuous at worst.

Are you actually saying, that US citizens, with their tax dollars, are somehow obligated to take care of people outside our country with foreign aid before we spend it on ourselves??

Seriously?

Re:Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

So when something is considered illegal... you think it should continue for 6 months because that would be 'fair'? The Obama executive action was an over-reach by the executive branch. Drumph rescinded it. He didnt make a new law, just removed a previous admins illegal actions. If congress wants to make a law thats up to them. He has nothing to do with making laws that the Senate and Congress branches of gov's responsibility.

Re:Global problem

[El Cubano]

The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.

I believe that this is a fundamentally flawed idea. It is true from a practical perspective that the President has that power. However, I believe that above that the President has an obligation to enforce the law. If what you say is true, then what difference is there between a law and an executive order? If it was right for Obama to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, then how come Trump does not simply to choose to not enforce the Affordable Care Act? Now, the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional and there is an argument there that the Obama Administration's decision to not enforce it or defend it in court was not prima facie wrong. And of course, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

However, the way that the checks and balances are structured, Congress writes and passes the laws, the President either signs or vetos the laws (or does a pocket veto). However, if the President signs the law or Congress successfully overrides the veto, then it becomes law. To say at that point it is the choice of that or any future president whether or not to enforce the law renders the legislative process effectively irrelevant. Only the judicial branch can declare that a law is unconstitutional. Otherwise, we have to assume that if it was created via a constitutional mechanism (passed by Congress, signed by the President or veto overridden), then the law is constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.

Re:Global problem

[msauve]

"The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law."

Uh, no. Article II, Section 3: "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." The President is also required to swear an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President" and to "protect and defend the Constitution."

Re:Global problem

[arth1]

I hope Trump gets rid of the Green Card Lottery. I don't understand why we give away 50000 green cards every year to people who may only have a high school degree.

We're not "giving away" green cards. Green cards are not free. The fees are higher than many can afford, and is a source of income. The bare minimum fees are:

- I-485 filing fee: $1,140
- Biometric services fee: $85
- Visum fee (to enter the US in the first place after "winning"): $160

In addition, there are external costs:
- Medical costs for filing a required I-693 form, in the $200-1,000 range depending on whether vaccinations are needed.
- 10+ approved photos.
- Costs of transportation to the US.
- Transportation and accommodation for INS interviews.
- Translation assistance or lawyers as needed.
- Means of living for the couple of years it takes to process the application.

So truly poor people can't afford to "win" a green card lottery.

Re:Global problem

[gtall]

On the other hand, this shows el Presidente Tweetie has no heart. Otherwise, he'd work with Congress to get a properly authorized program. In my estimation, he wants to get rid of DACA as reward to his loyal customers...errr...base. On the other hand, he's absolutely against having to take responsibility for a decision that could end up causing widespread angst. What to do, what to do? So he punts to Congress knowing full well those idiots will never agree to get a new DACA in place, and then can blame them for his decision to get rid of it. Classic politics by an unclassy guy.

Re:Global problem

[gtall]

Yeah, right on!! It worked a treat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Global problem

[pnutjam]

Imagine DACA as a rolling pardon.

Re:Global problem

[Retric]

Unless Trump actually enforces 800,000+ deportations he is not following the law either. Just trying to expand a massive underclass of undocumented workers.

Re:Global problem

[dryeo]

It's never as simple as you state. Resources are one limit on enforcing the law. Congress passes a law saying such and such but only funds such, the President has to decide which such to enforce, or in this case, decide which illegal immigrants to prioritize. Then there can be questions such as is it more important to put resources into catching murderers or people sitting in their basement smoking a joint. You even see similar when a cop has the discretion to give out a speeding ticket or a warning, prosecutors deciding which crimes to prosecute and so on.
One good example are the federal laws illegalizing pot, do you really want the President to vigorously prosecute such laws? Where I am, differently setup Federal system, pot is defacto legal due to the Provincial government (Constitutionally required to enforce laws) not enforcing the Federal (Constitutionally in charge of criminal law) laws. At that it has devolved to the municipalities to enforce the drug selling trade through business license costs and rules like "so far from a school". The cops also have stopped enforcing the laws against shooting up in public/private to a large degree in favour of saving lives. People are a lot more likely to phone 911 for an overdose when they aren't worried about being thrown in jail.

Re: Global problem

[whoever57]

Only by changing the definition of "deport" so sycophants ...

You are the sycophant. Obama did not change the definition of "deport". He did make a change to the process which resulted in more people being deported rather than just returned. This change is something that Trump supporters should actually support.

But the key metric is the number of illegal immigrants in the USA, and this has been declining for quite a while now. At the end of Obama's term, there were slightly fewer illegal immigrants in the USA than at the beginning.

Re:Global problem

[whoever57]

If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items

Please explain how a policy which has failed in the middle east would work in a much larger continent.

Re:Global problem

[ArylAkamov]

Rhodesia 2.0 when?

Re: Global problem

[pr0fessor]

You have that backwards tax money is an allowance given by the tax paying citizens to it's local, state, and federal governments and as such should be used at those levels prior to any foreign aid.

 

Re:Global problem

[Train0987]

He doesn't have to deport a single one if he removes all benefits given to illegals and enforces the laws against hiring them in the first place. They'll leave on their own. Many already have since he was elected.

Re:Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I am sure you have written the current president demanding that he immediately enforce the emoluments clause? Also the Logan act? I am certain he has ordered the FBI to immediately arrest himself for violating these laws...

Re:Global problem

[Train0987]

The president does not have the power to make someone a citizen, so no it's not even close to a pardon. If they're still here the day after the pardon they're breaking the law again.

Re:Global problem

[Train0987]

Sure it does. "Swearing an oath" is basically entering into a contract.

Re: Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that actually happened sort of as described.

Re:Global problem

[imgod2u]

See, here's the thing. People like to throw out "it's unconstitutional" like the arm-chair lawyers they are. Except of course, if it were, we have a 3rd branch of government to check the executive for this very purpose. And that 3rd branch took DACA into consideration and thought it to be perfectly within the Executive's powers.

You may personally disagree and Congress-critters may personally disagree. But that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than, say, 8 Supreme court justices (half of which are conservative, originalists when it comes to the Constitution rather than "living document" types).

It should be noted that when Obama tried to expand DACA, it was shot down and halted by the Judicial. Which seems to indicate the expansion was indeed executive over-reach.

I'll quote the Supreme Court:

"[W]e recognize that an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some
extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch
not to indict—a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of
the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the
Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”"

A good source on the justification of the Executive (and btw, Deferred Action for immigration goes back to around 1972 and was exercised by just about every Administration since then) authority to pick-and-choose who to prosecute for action can be found:

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/s...

Again. You may not personally agree. But stating "it's Unconstitutional" as if you were some legal authority with vast Constitutional knowledge is fairly ridiculous.

Re:Global problem

[munch117]

If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, bankroll select warlords, flood the place with guns and provide all the necessary items to shatter the local economy. That was the idea in Somalia, and unsurprisingly it blew up in our faces.

What actually happens when the US imagines itself fixing things at gunpoint.

Re:Global problem

[Rakarra]

In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.

Exactly. This is what you get when you live by the Executive Decision -- it's a very transitory action that can be entirely undone at the whim of the next President.

Re:Global problem

[mi]

Unless Trump actually enforces 800,000+ deportations he is not following the law either.

Not true. Even if he does not, he'd still be reducing the divergence from the law — even if not to the full extent of how some people would like.

Re: Global problem

[Jason Levine]

The "give money to Iran" incident was actually Iran's money that we had put a freeze on. One of the terms of the Iran deal was that we'd release that money if they hit some metrics. They hit the metric so we released the money. This wasn't just giving Iran US taxpayer money (like some try to describe it). It was us following through on a deal. Whether you like the Iran deal or not, once the deal is made you either need to follow through on it or it's worthless. We were following through on it by releasing funds that belonged to Iran but that we had frozen/seized.

Re:Global problem

[Nikkos]

This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

This - 100x THIS^^^

Obama didn't have the constitutional authority to do this. It would have been struck down eventually by the Supreme Court.

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

It's because he's a racist, a good deal of his supporters are racist, and he wants to remain popular among them. The end goal is to reduce the number of people of Latin American origin in this country. Not to restore a proper constitutional balance. That's only a happy coincidence.

I don't think that the majority of folks in the US, nor the majority of Trump supporters have a problem with Latin or any other type of immigrants, as long as they are LEGAL immigrants.

Don't forget, the ones in question here are here ILLEGALLY, and by law of the land as it currently stands, are to be deported.

I agree that the immigration process needs to be updated and better regulated, and made to not be so $$$....however, that is no excuse not to enforce the currently laws.

If we don't like the laws on the books, then change them.

That is where the energy and push should go, not by defending people here illegally, who by definition have broken US immigrations laws and are in criminal violation.

Re:Global problem

[Jason Levine]

He gave a ton of money to Iran without Congress even knowing about it let alone approving it.

Congress appropriated the money for the Executive branch to use for foreign policy as they saw fit. If Congress didn't want the money to be used that way, they needed to put strings on the appropriation. And then we can have a nice battle over the constitutionality of Congress enacting foreign policy.

It wasn't even that. The "money we gave to Iran" was actually Iran's money that we had seized to get them to stop their nuclear programs. Part of the Iran deal (for better or worse) was "hit these metrics proving you've ended your nuclear program and we'll give you this money back." They agreed to it, hit the metrics, and so we gave them their money back. Still, some people like spinning this to make it seem as though Obama was sending taxpayer money to Iran.

Re:Global problem

[e3m4n]

Pot is not constitutionally banned, nor was any law ever passed explicitly banning cannabis. The 'legalization' of cannabis literally falls in an interpretation of the power, ceded by congress, to the DEA to regulate certain substances. Currently and for decades, it was considered Schedule 1. The DEA has decided that its _more_ dangerous than heroin (Schedule 2) despite no actual deaths. Meanwhile opiat related overdoses are now outpacing drunk driving and gun related deaths combined. The ONLY chemical substance to _ever_ be directly banned by congress was alcohol via the 19th amendment and subsequently repealed via the 21st amendment. If the executive branch so chose to stop its war on cannabis all they would have to do is re-classify it, the DEA is part of the executive branch. In the strictest definition of 'legal', nobody can actually say they have a 'prescription' written by a doctor for cannabis. The reason for this is that in order to write a prescription, you have to have a DEA number and you're only permitted to write a prescription for schedule 2 and lower.

Too much wiggle room has been ceded to the executive branch. Congress (all 500 members) needs to get off their asses and start legislating and stop passing the buck. They need to stop wasting time debating which fruit should be the national fruit and start working on deciding, as a collective, what is to be and not to be allowed. The FCC, the DEA, and the ATF should not be constantly changing their 'views' and 'opinions' on how various things apply or do not apply.

Re: Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ike deported 1.1 million illegals IN A SINGLE YEAR. In 1954. It is quite possible! And we can do a better job of making sure they don't come back, which was a major problem back in the '50s.

Re:Global problem

[Type44Q]

I understand his heart was in the right place

A) Realize this was a politician you're talking about and

B) Punch yourself in the face for being so ridiculously naive - nothing else'll suffice.

Re: Global problem

[e3m4n]

By releasing the money seized by previous sanctions. It was frozen iranian investments that were frozen as a punishment for previous terror-related acts. It was not paid out of the federal budget, as all matters of funding are the direct responsibility of the House of Representatives. See US Constitution for all relevant roles of the branches of government. Technically any payment to Iran must be approved by the house.

Re:Global problem

[Jason Levine]

The problem is that it is impossible to enforce all of the laws all of the time. ICE can't possibly round up, process, and deport every illegal alien. If they do mass roundups/deportations without any checks, it's only a matter of time before they deport a legal immigrant or even a US citizen. (I wouldn't be surprised if this has already happened.) An ICE who is deporting US citizens as "collateral damage" because they are trying desperately to enforce the laws 100% isn't a good federal law enforcement agency. On the flip side, they can't simply ignore all of the illegal immigrants either. If they did, there'd be no point to the agency at all.

So we need to prioritize who ICE goes after. Obviously, dangerous criminals should be at the top of their list. If they have the resources to deport one illegal immigrant and the three potential illegal immigrants are a dangerous criminal, a migrant worker, and a teen who was brought to America by his parents when he was a year old, the criminal should be kicked out first.

DACA was a policy dictating that - if illegal immigrants who were brought here as kids registered - ICE would use their resources on other illegal immigrants. I agree that DACA should be written into law - perhaps with a path to citizenship if the person is law abiding and contributing to society, but I'd argue that DACA should have been kept in place as a temporary measure until Congress could replace it.

Re:Global problem

[Austerity Empowers]

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

Courts decide constitutionality. The judicial and executive branch do what they think is right (ideally, power grab practically).

SAYING it is unconstitutional gets cheers from the beer helmet coalition though, and APPEARING tough by ending it because of a potentially false pretense gets them into voting booths.

Re:Global problem

[e3m4n]

Then I assume you would be for TERM LIMITS for ALL ELECTED FEDERAL POSITIONS??? IF you aren't you're still part of the fucking problem and just want your side to be on top again. Cleaning house means get rid of both sides and start over. The old bullshit games need to stop.

Re:Global problem

[Austerity Empowers]

judicial->legislative

Re:Global problem

[HornWumpus]

England kept Afghanistan for a century as a training site. They never controlled anything but the cities.

It was worth it. England rotated all new troops through Afghanistan. They lost a couple % of soldiers, but the remaining ones were at least twice as effective once 'blooded'.

The Brits only left once the Irish had raised their game and they had a training theater closer to home.

Re:Global problem

[nine-times]

Actually NO he does not have the choice on whether or not to enforce the law.

The president can certainly prioritize enforcing certain laws over others, and he can de-prioritize laws to the extent that they're basically not being enforced. The president isn't supposed to get involved in law enforcement on a case-by-case basis, but he can give directives to various agencies on what things they should pursue. Now, there are various ways in which the other branches of government can keep this power in check, limiting how much discretion he has, but he does have some discretion.

Re:Global problem

[Rakarra]

He bombed american citizens without trial.

If an American citizen goes to a foreign country and joins enemy forces against which there is an active military campaign, you don't need need some trial to decide to bomb. The war doesn't stop just because a citizen has joined the enemy.

Re:Global problem

[e3m4n]

you know you have no argument when you have to take a discussion of legal process and just throw out discrediting remarks about racism because your arguments suck. So was it because Hillary was black too? Or her husband Bill? I guess everybody hates Pelosi because they cant stand that black former speaker right? You're such a fucking idiot. Learn to take credit for your comments spineless coward, and learn to form thoughtful debates. 200+ comments and you're the only want throwing out the race card there fucktard.

Re:Global problem

[Jodka]

AC wrote:

His name was Barack Obama. Not Barry, you ass.

from the LA Times:

Obama was born in Honolulu. When he was 2, his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan, and his Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham, separated and later divorced. Dunham later married Lolo Soetoro, who was a Muslim. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama lived from ages 6 to 10. People there knew him as Barry Soetoro.

Re:Global problem

[e3m4n]

an executive order is NOT a law. Its a TEMPORARY one at best. A law is PERMANENT until, again, passed by the LEGISLATIVE process. The very authority that gave the previous president the authority to create one executive order, gave another the ability to end it. Neither one is right or wrong. You people are whining because this president is doing the exact same fucking things you defending the previous president for doing. If you dont like it, CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW, or even CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, then no president can override it. You act like DACA was the fucking 13th amendment. News flash fucktard, No president can violate an amendment, and not even congress can pass a law allowing slavery. It would take a new amendment of repeal of the 13th for that to happen. Stop pissing in your wheaties about these temporary changes and demand a permanent change. Start by getting rid of ALL members of congress. Stop fucking around with blaming one side. There is plenty of blood on everyones hands. Send them all to the figurative gallows. You yourself said it's as much as congress' fault. And no it didn't start with George W, but thats probably when you got out of high school and took notice. This shits been building for a long time. Its like a snowball on a mountainside. You might not notice the snowball slowly growing in size, but eventually it morphs into a full fledged avalanche and by then everyone takes notice but is too late to stop. Sadly everyone yelling snowball for the last 20years or so were accused of conspiracy.

Re: Global problem

[e3m4n]

I think the mere fear of these changes are having a larger impact than the actual deportations themselves. I keep reading reports that the number entering illegally is way down, simply out of fear. I think what nobody, hopefully nobody anyway, wants to hear about is XYZ violent offender getting caught after multiple crimes and multiple deportations. Why deport someone like that a second time to their own country? Obviously that country wasnt going to keep them imprisoned. I say 2nd deportation of someone like this should be to a remote, uninhabited island, 300miles off shore. Fuck them. The non-violent types I can sympathize, they are just trying to survive and its a sort of cat-and-mouse game. The gang member types, they can rot in the south pacific for all i care.

Re:Global problem

[e3m4n]

no government, no warlord, no dictator, can withstand all of its citizens rising up in pure revolt. Even armed with pitchforks the governments would collapse. You cant exist as a government, assuming you didn't get toppled, by eliminating 80% of your population. This is the only means that any free nation has been able to remain free. This is why Iraq and Afghanistan are not thriving. Nobody can do it for you because the same lame fucks that let the shit happen to them the first time, will let it happen to them a second. The french cleaned fucking house of anyone complicit when they had their revolution. Had they not, they would have been right back to where they started. As long as there is a large brainwashed population that feels its better to just bend over unwillingly and let someone shove it in your ass than say fuck-off, it can happen to any society.

Re:Global problem

[Cederic]

All of which is irrelevant. Stop the green card lottery to put fucking Cantor and Siegel out of business.

Re: Global problem

[Goetterdaemmerung]

But the key metric is the number of illegal immigrants in the USA, and this has been declining for quite a while now. At the end of Obama's term, there were slightly fewer illegal immigrants in the USA than at the beginning.

The article mentions 800,000 people who had a change in status during Obama's term from "illegal" to "undocumented". Is your statement that there are fewer illegal immigrants based on this change in terminology or is there some other evidence?

Re:Global problem

[Cederic]

Where, exactly, does the Constitution require invading another country in order to arrest a US citizen for trial?

Must be right next to the bit authorising murdering your own citizens without one.

Re:Global problem

[Cederic]

Strange, it looks to me like you're projecting your own racism onto the parent poster.

Not to mention assuming their political affiliation.

Re:Global problem

[quantaman]

In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.

Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?

Whether an executive action is legal is a different standard than whether an executive action is moral or wise.

Some of these people were so young when they were brought to the US that they didn't even realize they were an immigrant until somebody told them.

Do you really want to deport them?

Re:Global problem

[doctorvo]

the President has to decide which such to enforce

Well, SCOTUS has been pretty clear that conduct like DACA exceeds prosecutorial discretion.

Re:Global problem

[fuzznutz]

Swearing an oath does not have any legal force.

Try using that defense when you are indicted for perjury and see how it works out for you.

Re:Global problem

[Tough Love]

If Trump was really asking Congress to enact DACA, he would have written his order so that DACA would stop processing new applications in 6 months rather than stop processing new applications immediately.

So the "six months" thing is a lie. What else did we expect?

Re:Global problem

[jjo]

Quite so. Rather than hand out green cards at random, we should issue them to the applicants most likely to help the domestic economy, as Canada and many other nations do.

Re:Global problem

[Goetterdaemmerung]

It's never as simple as you state.

...

One good example are the federal laws illegalizing pot, do you really want the President to vigorously prosecute such laws? Where I am, differently setup Federal system, pot is defacto legal due to the Provincial government (Constitutionally required to enforce laws) not enforcing the Federal (Constitutionally in charge of criminal law) laws. At that it has devolved to the municipalities to enforce the drug selling trade through business license costs and rules like "so far from a school".

It's still less simple. The tenth amendment delegates non-enumerated powers to the States as we are a union of separate States. The federal enforcement you are referring to concerning drugs is derived from interstate commerce. The State laws are not generally superseded by Federal laws. The drinking age is a state law, for example. It was imposed via threat of losing federal road funding and each state made their individual law.

Of course there are specific examples of cooperation that you can find - however the feds have no jurisdiction to enforce state laws and the local police have no jurisdiction to enforce federal laws. (There are extradition procedures, it's not like they have to let you go).

Re:Global problem

[prince hal]

Getting back to subject.

This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

If Obama, as president, doesn't have the authority to create laws, how does Trump, also (apparently) a president, have the authority to "unmake" them? Or in other words, if making law is the job of Congress, then unmaking law should be their responsibility also. It sounds like Trump is committing the same crime. Does nobody see that it's just as wrong when he does it?

Re: Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

Actually no it wasnt. The Iran deal back in the day was 400mil. Obama gave them 1.7 billion. NONE of which was his to give. It was up to congress to authorize that payment and whether or not to pay 1.3 billion on interest to Iran. IE The US President can indeed make deals BUT congress has to approve the deal AND release the money. Flying over pallets of money in the middle of the night by president decree is not legal as the president does not have the power of the purse. If a Repub president had done it the main stream media would have had a field day with it. Instead they fell over themselves carrying his water on why it was such a brilliant move. That money was used to pay terrorists and help them push their nuclear weapons program. An argument could be made that he gave aid and comfort to the enemy which is treason.

Re:Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

Actually its Barry to me. As only a 'barry' could be that big of a douche. IMHO Barry is right up there with 'chad' in douchebag names. Seems kind of fitting that a douchebag would pick a douchbag name to be called by.
He will go down in history as a great divider. Without him and his actions the US would never have gotten Drumph. So stick your 'you people' up your ass. Its ALL people not just some who are getting screwed by his legacy.

Re:Global problem

[mi]

Whether an executive action is legal is a different standard than whether an executive action is moral or wise.

And yet, it is the legality of President Obama's earlier executive order, that the OP was talking about. Not its wisdom or morality, but the legality.

Do you really want to deport them?

I do not want to. Myself a first-generation immigrant, I do not blame people for wanting to come to this wonderful country — legally or otherwise. But I also recognize the country's right to decide, who to take — and to enforce the decision. We do not owe the foreigners — including ones brought here at too young an age — anything.

On a side-note, our policies on the subject are — Trump or not — among the most lenient in the developed world.

Re:Global problem

[Tough Love]

Fake president Trump will make history as the first POTUS to leave office in handcuffs. Sad!

Ruskies have mod points on slashdot today.

Re:Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

Only during legally sanctioned times of war does that apply. Last time I checked the US had not formally declared war on Pakistan... a somewhat allied country. During peace time you dont blow up people and innocent bystanders because you THINK they are 'bad guys'. You dont even do it if you can prove it. You arrest them and put them on trial. This is especially true of US citizens who have not formally renounced their citizenship and the rights and privileges that go along with having the franchise.

Either the US formally declares was on ISIS and its ilk or it is bound by Int'l laws as well as US laws on the killing of innocent until proven guilty citizens. Barry did neither. Instead he authorized the killing of a 'bad man'. Might as well bring back the 'he needed killing' defence as that is what it boiled down to.

Re:Global problem

[HornWumpus]

You need to seriously restudy the French revolution.

They _were_ back right where they started. It's a historical study in how _not_ to do it, compare to the American revolution...

Re: Global problem

[HornWumpus]

Sunni/Shia war is going nicely. But we can't take _credit_ for restarting it, it's 1300 years old and never really ended.

Re:Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

Where exactly does it state that the US has the right to invade a country without formal declaration of war? There is this thing called Internal Law that goes over extradition procedures. It does not involve invading the air space of foreign country just because a criminal is there. No deceleration of war... no bombing other countries to kill someone. He had all the rights and privileges of any US citizen. Saying he was a bad man - and probably was- is no excuse for killing someone without a trial.

Ding ding. He looked the other way with the NSA and in doing so was party to the crime until it became law.

Congress IS the purse strings. Your argument boils down to a kid lying to his parents saying he wants to give money to the poor and instead uses it to buy comic books. Treaties and deals with foreign countries MUST be approved by congress. He misappropriated funds to do his deal. That would land you or I in jail if we did the same while working for a company as a CEO.

As for obamacare exemptions. Read up on it. Congress got a waiver by Barry. Unions who voted Democrat got one. Companies who were came donors to his election got one. It was ruled a tax, and thus these waivers he gave out were illegal.

Re:Global problem

[bjwest]

Getting back to subject.

This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

Instead of DACA allowing them to stay by giving them 2 year renewable work visas, why did he not just fast track them in the already established que to become full fledged U.S. citizens? If he'd done that there would be no problem now. I highly doubt even Congress would be able to take that away, certainly not Trump.

Of course, being educated by the U.S. educational system, I highly doubt they would be able to pass the Citizenship exam.

Re:Global problem

[Kohath]

Still kind of assholish to name-call. It's long past time Americans stopped being jerks to each other over stupid shit. (And for the record, I opposed Obama and voted against him.)

Re:Global problem

[jeff4747]

Where exactly does it state that the US has the right to invade a country without formal declaration of war?

Where exactly does it state that the US has the right to invade a country with a formal declaration of war? (if we want to be sufficiently pedantic).

There is this thing called Internal Law that goes over extradition procedures.

International Law.

And when the other country refuses to extradite, as in the situation you are upset about, now what? How about when there are non-US persons in the vehicle being blown up, which again is the actual situation you are claiming to be upset about?

'Cause a whole lot of Presidents used the other people in the vehicle as justification for blowing up the vehicle anyway. But you don't seem terribly upset about those.

Congress IS the purse strings. Your argument boils down to a kid lying to his parents saying he wants to give money to the poor and instead uses it to buy comic books.

No, there was no lying involved. This was the parents giving the kid money without strings, and the kid spending it.

He misappropriated funds to do his deal. That would land you or I in jail if we did the same while working for a company as a CEO.

So odd that a Republican-controlled Congress did not impeach Obama for such obvious lawbreaking.....almost like it wasn't lawbreaking.

Congress got a waiver by Barry

False.

Senator Grassley (Republican) thought he had a great idea for torpedoing the ACA. He introduced an amendment that required Congress and their staff to buy health insurance from the exchanges. Grassley was expecting the Democrats to balk, and then he'd have his gotcha moment. Instead, the Democrats said "Ok" and put it in the bill.

This set off a bit of frantic bargaining, because the bluff was not supposed to be called. So Congress and their staff have to get insurance from the exchanges, but Congress pays 100% of the premiums as if Congress was still providing employer-sponsored insurance.

Unions who voted Democrat got one

No, Unions were pissed off by the ACA, because the "Cadillac Health Plan Tax" hits them first.

This tax is poorly indexed, because it was intended to pressure unions and employers to stop offering insurance and put everyone on the exchanges. The theory was that with everyone in the same pool, it would be much easier to make future reforms.

Companies who were came donors to his election got one.

What did they get, exactly? People on employer-sponsored health insurance were mostly unaffected by the ACA. The only significant change was the end of lifetime spending caps and requiring things like maternity coverage....which applies to every employer-sponsored health insurance plan.

So what awesome benefit did these companies get?

It was ruled a tax, and thus these waivers he gave out were illegal.

Wow do you have things utterly and completely confused here.

The part that was ruled a tax was the individual mandate.

Waivers give states alternate ways to get federal money for medicaid expansion.

No waivers have been ruled illegal.

It's almost like you've actually read nothing but completely uninformed rants instead of actually

Read up on it

Re:Global problem

[mpercy]

As Mexico does.

Re:Global problem

[mpercy]

Many here have pointed out that DACA is *not* just not enforcing deportation orders against illegal aliens who came here as children. It created a whole new class of work visa (controlling immigration, including defining who gets work visas, is a Congressional power). It created an administrative branch that is self-funded through fees in an attempt to bypass the Constitutional requirement that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law".

Re:Global problem

[mpercy]

DACA did a lot more than just not prosecute people. It provided work visa to people to whom Congress had explicitly denied said work visas (by defining who *could* get visas, it excluded all others). It created an administrative body that claimed to be outside the scope of Congresses budgetary authority because it "self-funded" through fees. If it *only* been a "rolling pardon" you could maybe make a good case that Obama's administration was just prioritizing enforcement efforts. But that's just not the case.

Re:Global problem

[mpercy]

DACA is not a law to be unmade. DACA was an executive policy (and very likely unconstitutional in its full scope) promulgated by the Obama administration. Trump's policy here boils down to "We're gonna stop ignoring the laws Congress wrote."

There's not really much question that Obama could chose to direct his Justice Department and AG to simply put all other actions above enforcing immigration laws on children brought here illegally. But that's not all DACA did. It gave them work permits (a violation of laws which Congress duly enacted). It created an administrative agency that said it was not under Congress's budgetary control because it self-funded through fees, even though the Constitution says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law".

Absent Trump's order the 10 states threatening to sue over DACA are quite likely to succeed. With respect to the similar action on DAPA, the 5th Circuit "majority found that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking because DAPA and expanded DACA determinations are non-discretionary. In addition, the majority held that the new deferred action initiatives are arbitrary and capricious because the federal government did not have authority to promulgate them under the Immigration and Nationality Act."

In short, whatever Obama did with a stroke of his pen (legal or not, Constitutional or not) can be undone with a stroke of Trump's pen. The legality/Constitutionality of such actions can only be determined by Congress and/or the Courts.

Of course, where Obama chose to use discretion to place DACA people at the very bottom of any prosecution priority list, Trump could just as easily choose to make then public enemy #1. Just an example of how living by the pen means you can die by the pen.

Obama and Democrats are surely regretting having said a few things along the way:

Obama: “Elections have consequences and at the end of the day, I won."

"We're not just going to be waiting for legislation," Obama announced. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions."

Tim Kaine: “We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members,” Kaine said, pointing out that he will be serving in the Senate at least into January. “I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice,” Kaine said. “If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.’”

Re:Global problem

[mpercy]

What one President can wave into existence at the stroke of a pen, another can undo the same way.

Re: Global problem

[shmlco]

Obligated? No. But if you need an excuse for doing the right thing and lending a helping hand to those in need, keep in mind that foreign aid can help stabilize regions and help prevent disaffected youth or other people from forming and/or joining organizations detrimental to the US (e.g. ISIS).

IOW, a little money spent today might prevent a ton of money and lives from being lost when someone decides that they have nothing to lose by running an airliner or two into your country's skyscrapers.

And FWIW, I've found that most of the people who complain the loudest about foreign aid also tend to complain about any tax dollars spent here in the US.

Re:Global problem

[edtice1559]

This is the cruel tactic known as "self-deportation." But you don't have to take away DACA or anything else to get people to leave. Net migration from Mexico (until recently the largest source of undocumented immigrants) is negative. The problem is, of course, that our domestic birth rate is so low that we risk an economic implosion if we don't court more immigrants. So this is bad policy from a moral and economic standpoint, but the fact is that we don't need to encourage people to leave this country. They're already doing it.

Re: Global problem

[mpercy]

FDR's government rounded up 120,000 Japanese an put them in internment camps and held them there for years. And used an Executive Order to do so! And required all immigrants of Japanese, German, and Italian descent to register with the DOJ and get their Certificates of Identification for Aliens of Enemy Nationality.

And this action was upheld by SCOTUS.

Re:Global problem

[jeremyp]

Who cares whether it is unconstitutional or not. Sending these people back to countries with which they have zero connection is inhuman.

If you want to be a shit, don't hide behind the constitution.

Re:Global problem

[edtice1559]

Well the problem is that US immigration laws have been dripping in racism for so long that there's really no opportunity for people of certain national origin to come here. Imagine in Jim Crow days if we had said "I don't think that the majority of folks in the US, nor the majority of Trump supporters have a problem with Black people as long as they sit in the front of the bus LEGALLY." Well if you made it legal for black people to sit in the front of the bus, they would do that. Find one non-racist immigration bill and you could win some people over with that argument. The motivation of our immigration LAWS is racism so saying you favor LEGAL immigration right now is saying you favor RACIALLY-BIASED immigration. That's why the position is indefensible. We don't change the law because many people seem to like the law and that's why the original sin of this country is racism.

Re:Global problem

[UsuallyReasonable]

It's very accurate, which is probably what upsets you.

Re:Global problem

[mpercy]

I point you to a novel Viral http://www.jameslilliefors.com....

An investment consortium (I forget exactly, but I recall that the Chinese had a large hand in it as did the CIA) has realized that Africa is a resource-rich continent, and that the only problem with it is, well, it's run by Africans (i.e., warlords and tin-pot dicatorships). So they've created an engineered and weaponized virus that kills only Africans and are surreptitiously releasing it into areas, killing the local populations--whole countries, basically--and then moving in with First World industry and First World people willing to move there for the jobs. Imperialism without the pesky natives.

Re:Global problem

[HornWumpus]

If you're born here, you are native.

Re:Global problem

[GumphMaster]

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

True, then the Oompa Loompa could not unilaterally remove the protections. However, first the House and Senate need to agree to do something and then pass something up that the Oompa Loompa will not veto in a tweet. Either way there's a single-point-of-failure involved.

Re:Global problem

[Rakarra]

During peace time you dont blow up people and innocent bystanders because you THINK they are 'bad guys'.

Only Congress can "declare war," but it's not a war against a country, it's a war against a movement that Congress authorized over a decade ago.

Re:Global problem

[Rakarra]

They'll leave on their own. Many already have since he was elected.

How many have left? Where's the data? Or is that just another Trump talking point?

It happens long before Trump was elected; it was a consequence of the depressed job and housing markets during the Great Recession.

Re:Global problem

[Rakarra]

The problem is, of course, that our domestic birth rate is so low that we risk an economic implosion

No we don't. We are at absolutely no danger from running out of people.
There is no worse problem than you can have than never-ending population growth, so the birth rate is fine.

Re: Global problem

[dougdonovan]

its not a global problem. it just applies to the legal citizens of the united states of america.

Re:Global problem

[sexconker]

Are you retarded? It's a contract. Break it with a Congress that cares and you get the boot at the very least. The problem is we haven't had a Congress that cares in decades.

Re: Global problem

[sexconker]

Not to mention he''s giving Trump 4 years (referencing 2020) while Obama had 8.

Saying it's impossible is stupid and shows how little people know of history.

Re:Global problem

[sexconker]

They never finished.

Hate to be devil's advocate in this one, but part of that "being the world's police" or "imperialism" thing is sticking around to rebuild after you blow everything up, while also providing stability to the region, so as to protect it's developing government from the inevitable power vacuum and anarchy that comes hand in hand with toppling regimes.

This is a very modern concept. It had it's first real trial after WWII. The goal was to prevent WWIII. It mostly worked for Japan, but it has absolutely not stabilized Europe. And when we tried in repeatedly in the middle east it's had the opposite effect.

It doesn't matter how long you stay or how much money you pour into those regions. They either want your support or they want your head. It has worked one single time in all of human history (Japan's reconstruction). The next best instance would be the Romans, but they were mainly stabilizing with the whole ""peace" through constant war and subjugation" shtick, not actual rebuilding/cooperation efforts. And we all know how that ended.

Re:Global problem

[sl3xd]

Ah yes, fiction, where the facts never get in the way of a good story.

A virus that kills only "Africans" is a fantasy. There is no "African" ethnicity; there are thousands, often Europeans are closer genetically to African ethnicities than between two different African ethnicities.

Re:Global problem

[Rakarra]

Then I assume you would be for TERM LIMITS for ALL ELECTED FEDERAL POSITIONS???

I can't speak for the original poster, but I'm not for term limits. In my state, we passed an amendment for term limits for elected officials, and what it guaranteed were a bunch of people who were clueless how government worked, never knew who to contact or what they should be doing, and when it seemed like they had finally gotten out of the growing pains phase, they were termed out. Term limits are great if you think all elected officials are assholes and you want them all gone, all the time, but not so great if you like good governance.

Re:Global problem

[cfalcon]

> Obama had a decent (not perfect) track record of not crossing the line of Constitutionally but he did have to walk it, because of a congress who would refuse to do anything.

If Trump does the same thing of "not crossing the line of Constitutionality, but having to walk it, because of a congress who refuses to do anything", will you interpret it like that, or will you spin it totally differently?

Re:Global problem

[edtice1559]

There are many worse problems than population growth. Like famine or a plague. Now I'm not saying that we need to keep growing the population of the planet until we induce a catastrophe. But if you want a steady or declining population, you want a *very slow* decline. You don't want a crash. The only way to handle a population decline is with a lot of automation but if that happens rapidly you will have seniors starving to death as we won't be able to find retirement benefits with current work. Now maybe we shouldn't be funding retirement benefits that way. There are plenty of fair arguments for other mechanisms. But to have a declining population without the prerequisite preparation would be pretty irresponsible.

Re:Global problem

[kbahey]

If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items. That was the idea in Somalia, and it is the correct and probably only workable idea for accomplishing that. But some asshole on Slashdot would be on whining about "imperialism" or us trying to be the world's policemen, which would eventually stop it.

Yeah, the USA should really try this idea out ...

Like for example, in Afghanistan ... where the Taliban are a major source of instability with frequent suicide bombings and indiscriminate attacks.

Or, for example, Iraq, where Saddam was deposed, only to open up a huge power vacuum providing a breeding ground for extremists, like Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, which later became Daesh (known as Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL, ...etc.) They took over vast territories, American weapons from the fleeing Iraqi army, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from the Mosul central bank, and oil fields, and instated the most harsh state of affairs on millions. It is taking years to loosen their grip on the lands they controlled.

Oh, but if only the USA can invade more countries, things will be better ...

Re:Global problem

[uncqual]

DACA went way beyond "not enforcing" a law by giving it low enforcement priority. It created an entire new program (with regulations, applications, fees, documentation etc) to effectively exempt individuals from a law that Congress passed. It created an entire new immigration status that was never authorized by Congress -- which is the only entity that has the power to create such a immigration status.

It would be like if Trump decided to create "Orange Cards" which would grant "special economic residency" that confered all the benefits of a Green Card holder to anyone paying $10,000,000 to the Treasury thereby effectively bypassing all permanent residency laws passed by Congress.

Would you, for example, seriously suggest that because the IRS is in the Administrative branch that the President has the power to exempt individuals who qualify under criteria developed by him from paying any Federal Income Taxes because he thought it was "good for the economy and compassionate because it would create more jobs for poor people if wealthy people could invest more of their money rather than pay it in Federal Income Taxes"?

Re:Global problem

[dryeo]

My understanding is that Congress passed a controlled substance act which specifically made marijuana a schedule 1 drug. Wiki seems to agree with me and mentions a couple of supreme court cases where it was ruled that the Federal government has a right to pass such laws and that the supremacy clause in the American Constitution means that federal law overrules state law when there is a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Still sounds like the Federal government has decided not to prosecute in various States. Seems I remember cases of the feds busting dispensaries in California that were selling medical marijuana. Here in Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to medical marijuana and all the government ca do is regulate, eg you need a prescription and whereas previously you could grow your own, the previous Conservative government made it so you had to buy it from government appointed grower (they also tried to make it impossible to combat the opiod crisis by making safe injection sites almost impossible to set up, which was also contrary to the Supreme Court ruling that people had a right to safety in shooting up).

You are right that in America, Congress should be a lot clearer on the laws they pass.

Re:Global problem

[dryeo]

Interesting. Is that due to the way the law is worded or?
Still doesn't change my point that in general, the executive doesn't prosecute all laws equally for various reasons such as resources.

Re:Global problem

[dryeo]

My understanding is that the American Constitution includes a supremacy clause, where if there are conflicts between state and federal laws, the federal laws are supreme.
Now when it comes to powers that the Constitution doesn't give the feds, the states should be supreme but SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree. Seems the interstate clause is abused, the feds could enforce things such as a common way of measuring potency of pot, but to claim that someone growing it for personal use infringes on interstate trade is quite the jump.
Anyways the drug laws are just one example of laws that the feds don't always prosecute.

Re:Global problem

[doctorvo]

Prosecutorial discretion needs to be a simple case-by-case decision not to prosecute "for now"; DACA guarantees non-prosecution to a class of people for a well-defined period of time and hence isn't prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion can't be used to substantively alter laws; since DACA-like legislation had failed in Congress, Obama's adoption of DACA arguably does just that.

Finally, prosecutorial discretion only concerns the choice of whether to prosecute or not, but DACA creates additional benefits beyond merely not prosecuting.

Re:Global problem

[dunkelfalke]

Exactly. It is not called a "revolution" for nothing.

Re:Global problem

[The Cynical Critic]

As much as I hate defending Trump or is supporters, these "dreamers" still entered the country illegally. The issue is not if they did it willingly or not, just that they entered the country illegally. In other words this is a question of principle, not of breaking the law willingly or not.

I'm not an American myself so I'm not 100% certain about the specifics of the Obama-era executive order Trump just allowed to lapse, but this didn't seem particularly fair to the people it covered either. Not only did it require these people to walk on egg shells at the threat of deportation, it also lacked any kind of path to naturalization and didn't really offer the people it covered all that much more than simply staying in the country illegally. Because of this I wouldn't say it's a completely unfair to characterize the whole thing as an immigration limbo either meant as a stopgap or easy justification for deporting illegal immigrants that didn't fall under the program.

I guess one way of looking at this whole mess is to think of it as one big band-aid that had to be removed at some point...

Re:Global problem

[houghi]

If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items.

I doubt that. You are not even able to do that in your own country.
Try taking away the guns and see what happens.
And you are unable to provide basic things like clean water, education, health for all or a _functional_ democratic system.

And yes, the reason the USofA would try to save Africa would be Imperialism. The reason people do not want you to be the policeman of the world is police brutality.

Re:Global problem

[mjwx]

I hope Trump gets rid of the Green Card Lottery. I don't understand why we give away 50000 green cards every year to people who may only have a high school degree.

We're not "giving away" green cards. Green cards are not free. The fees are higher than many can afford, and is a source of income. The bare minimum fees are:

US$1,500 is actually pretty cheap.

Want to get a ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) for the UK, that's £2,400 thanks.
A Canadian I know moved to Australia and spent upwards of US$8,000 at the time and still wasn't finished with permanent residency.

The idea of Green Cards isn't to resettle refugees (each country has different policies for that) but to attract low to moderately skilled workers. People who can hold down a decent job but the skills are common enough not to be on a list of in-demand professionals.

Re:Global problem

[mjwx]

He doesn't have to deport a single one if he removes all benefits given to illegals and enforces the laws against hiring them in the first place. They'll leave on their own. Many already have since he was elected.

Good luck with that.

I think you missed the point, the idea _IS_ to create a huge underclass that can be exploited. Also to make it look like Trump is doing something to distract people from what he's really doing, selling the US down the river.

Re:Global problem

[houghi]

It clearly states "to 10" That means (and I am rounding up) that he was known by that name up to and including the age of 10. He is a bit older now, so his name as he was President was Barack Obama, not Barry Soetoro.

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

The motivation of our immigration LAWS is racism

Exactly how are our US immigration laws racist?

Expensive? Yes...

A clusterfuck of paperwork, and red tape? Yes...

It takes waayyy too long of a process? Yes...

Racist? How?

Re:Global problem

[edtice1559]

"Big countries with extensive migration histories like the Philippines and Mexico have the same cap – about 26,000 visas a year – as countries like Andora or Lesotho with small populations and little history of migration to the United States." http://www.scholarsstrategynet...

Re:Global problem

[penandpaper]

You worded it quite well and explained the problem and why so many on the right are skeptical of the left's plan for immigration/amnesty (or many other policies).

"it also lacked any kind of path to naturalization and didn't really offer the people it covered all that much more than simply staying in the country illegally"... Those people are then used as an example to justify laws to allow amnesty. A problem created specifically to be solved by amnesty the left have been wanting. It's rather dishonest if you ask me. Today I saw in the local papers "DACA end spells doom for Dreamer college dreams". It's emotional manipulation to get the laws wanted regardless of efficacy or thought to the people or nation (both us and host). All the while the anyone anti-immigration is demonized as racist because "think of the children" because merely following the existing laws is bad now.

"one big band-aid that had to be removed at some point..."
Again, well said. Who gains the political points depends on who can use the outrage best next election cycle. This isn't the first time this has been done either. It's like the ACA, design it to fail for democrats to "fix" it to get what they want i.e. single payer (whether SP is right or wrong doesn't matter, the way it's done is dishonest). All that we get are broken laws because compromise is too hard.

It's rather cynical that politics have become like this. It makes me worry for the future of the nation.

Re:Global problem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Correct https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag

Re: Global problem

[chihowa]

That's not a real "change in status" because "undocumented immigrant" is just a feel-good euphemism for "illegal immigrant". Being here without proper documentation is being here illegally. Just like in every other country in the world.

Re:Global problem

[david_thornley]

Why term limits? Why can't we just refuse to re-elect people?

Re:Global problem

[e3m4n]

the same reason(s) we eventually passed the 22nd amendment. The same reason(s) George Washington set the example of serving two terms. I dont know about you, but I'm tired of all the illegal/non-prosecuted activity coming from congress. They constantly exempt themselves from the laws they make. They sit on intelligence briefings and likely use blackmail to hold their power. There is no reason why these people should be making the millions that they make while serving in office. They should be forced to relinquish all holdings while in office and they should be forbidden from any and all stock investments, including direct relatives, and staff. The fact that insider trading is illegal, and no exemption has ever been made for congress, yet stocks are bought and sold constantly based on exclusive knowledge they had access to, and in most cases, direct influence over, I find abhorrent. The fact that Martha Stewart served jail time for selling shares stocks based on pillow talk her boyfriend happen to mention, yet these senators and congressmen serve in oversight committees and buy and sell stocks based on pre-knowlege and serve no jail time is disgusting. The SEC never prosecutes any of them. They mandate that the entire public buy their healthcare, then go about exempting themselves and give out exemptions to prominent donors as well. People get irate when a president chooses to reverse a decision to stop enforcing a law, yet do not hold their senators accountable who's damn job it is to change the law to begin with. For 20 years they have had the lowest approval ratings of all time, hovering at times as low as 13%, still now only 20%. Yet despite 74% of all Americans disproving of them they are still in power??? Why?

I'll tell you why... polarization. They've played this binary polarization game to such an extreme that people wont DARE vote these assholes out, for fear that the other party might gain a seat. As long as they keep doing this, and the sheeple keep buying it, they can sit on their overpaid, law-breaking asses and do nothing. They've sharpened this polarizing to such a degree that we literally have violent protests and counter protests, with pundits actually CONDONING violence. What the hell would Dr Martin Luther King have to say about this if he was alive today to see any of this??

Eventually fixing elections is going to be rather overt. Right now we just speculate as to if it does or does not happen. Once these assholes amass enough power they are going to do it overtly (or start doing it depending on your view). Without term limits in place, there will be nothing to stop them from creating their own mini dicatorships.

Re: Global problem

[ConceptJunkie]

The gang member types, they can rot in the south pacific for all i care.

I'm from Tahiti, you insensitive clod!

Seriously, this is the real problem. If the border is a free-for-all, then there's no chance to filter the truly undesirables from the vast majority of people who are just looking for work and to take care of themselves or their families.

Our current immigration (non) policy gets the best of all worlds for everyone in the political world and the worst of both worlds for the the actual citizens. Democrats get lots of voters. Republicans get lots of cheap labor. The former can virtue signal about caring about these people (they don't, except in as much as they usually vote Democrat) and the latter can virtue signal about the rule of law (which they also don't care about as long as their business constituents benefit from the cheap labor).

The majority of Americans aren't opposed to immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration, especially when that means that the gangbangers and drug runners have free rein and American cities are facing things like violence, kidnapping (see Phoenix) or outbreaks of diseases which had been previously eradicated generations ago.

But yeah, we're all racists, blah, blah, blah.

Re:Global problem

[gnasher719]

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

Well, your understanding is wrong.

There are an estimated 10 million people present in the USA who could legally be deported. Deportation costs money, therefore about 400,000 a year only get deported. So someone needs to decide who gets deported first, who gets deported second and so on.

Obama had the right to give orders which priorities should be followed determining who goes first. And he gave orders, quite reasonably, that people who were raised in the USA and lived there most of their lives, had jobs, paid taxes and health insurance, should be at the very end of the list. That was absolutely within his rights.

Re:Global problem

[lsatenstein]

Getting back to subject.

This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.

Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

Obama was hoping that congress would act. Now they have no choice. Act or lose some kids that know and love America since before the kids reached puberty.

Canada is willing to accept 30,000 DACA immediately.

Re: Global problem

[silentcoder]

For starters - the negative immigration predates Obama taking office, it's been a nett-negative for around 15 years now.

Now just in case they don't teach it in conservative school - effects can only come AFTER causes. So something that was already happening in 2002 cannot be because of anything Obama did. That includes a minor clarification of a legal definition.

Re:Global problem

[silentcoder]

How is it an overreach of his powers- when congress specifically authorized him to do it ?

Oh ? You didn't know they did that ?

The immigration laws as they stand were written by a republican congress in the Reagan era -who wrote it to give the president almost unlimited power to set policy on who does, or does not, get deported. It treats that entire thing as a pure executive-branch decision and was deliberately written to exclude the legislative branch from the decision.

This is exactly why the republican states that sued Obama over DACA lost in the Supreme court - because the Judges can READ and the immigration laws o America does specifically grant the president the power to do something like DACA.

Now, to be fair, it ALSO grants Trump the power to revoke it. But that may very well be unconstitutional for a different reason. There is a principle in law, enshrined in the US constitution but much older, that you cannot punish retro-actively. If you do something, and they then pass a law against it, you can't be punish for doing it before it was against the law. One consequence of that, also explicitely spelled out in the constitution, is that when the government creates an easement, and people take advantage of that easement, they cannot subsequently be punished for it.
DACA allowed dreamers to pursue futures, make life decisions based on it, and - because it required applications - reveal their status.

Even if it is repealed now it is almost certainly unconstitutional to deport anybody who registered under DACA - probably forever. When government encourages you to do something, if it subsequently changes it's mind, it CANNOT punish you for having done so - it's unconstitutional in the extreme, and prohibited by common law and every principle of justice.
Simply put - if they try to deport anybody on the DACA list -they WILL get trouble in the supreme court and if the court give even the slightest of fucks about justice and the constitution they WILL lose. At the very least -the very fact that DACA has existed, and had a registration component, pretty much creates lifelong immunity from deportation for it's recipients - and I promise you that case is coming.

(By the way - this is the same argument being made in the supreme court challenge to the transgender military rule repeal. Trans soldiers who had been in hiding had come out under the protection of Obama's rule, revealed themselves because it invited them to do so. To kick them out now - would be punishing them for doing something the government had encouraged them do when it was encouraging them to do so. It's fundamentally unjust and unconstitutional).

TRUMP FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

With all those pesky immigrant children out of the job pool I can finally become a farm-hand! MAGA!

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[HornWumpus]

There are basically no more 'skilled trade' jobs near the Mexican border. They aren't actually very skilled, but they work cheap. Which isn't to say the average American 'skilled tradesman' is particularly skilled.

Megra could fill their deportation pipelines easily by raiding construction sites. They don't, basically never, filing complaints is futile. Construction workers don't bother, for 20 years now.

In Europe (Germany to be specific) the fines for employing someone without work papers is five figures/illegal, first offence. Plus constant checks for subsequent years. That's what we need, the wall is unnecessary.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[Archangel Michael]

The actual Minimum wage is $0.

"Living Wage" is nothing but an artificial barrier to entry into the market, keeping people out of the market.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[Train0987]

A market that allows slave labor and compels others to compete with it is the opposite of "free".

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[pnutjam]

Commented earlier, so I can't mod you up, but your exactly right. Corporations and managers should bear the brunt of the costs for illegal immigrants.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[Nikkos]

Labor isn't a free market, unfortunately. It's being completely manipulated by business interests.

All those jobs that 'Americans don't want" are actually jobs that 'Americans don't want at the stupid-low wages'. There are a number of industries - farming, food processing, landscaping, service, light manufacturing/assembly - that require low-paid workers as part of their business model, and do everything they can to find ways to bring in labor from outside their market (immigrants - both illegal and legal) that is willing to work for those wages you (and most Americans) deem 'unlivable'.

Any true progressive should really recognize that if they want wealth equalization, then fixing labor-market manipulations is the answer - not introducing new ones. Fixing labor-market manipulations (such as illegal immigration, and H1-B/H2-B abuse) increases pressure to increase wages, and the resulting increases in prices are distributed across the populace, and minimal in overall cost to the individual consumer.

Finally, the problem with a 'living wage' is what defines a proper standard of living? How many cars? How big of a TV? $15/hour would be OK for Minnesota, but I'd imagine that $15/hour in San Francisco just gets you a bigger cardboard box to live in. How long until populist politicians start promising to give everyone a raise?

Re:TRUMP FTW!

[e3m4n]

You probably intended to sound funny, but the Horse farms here in my state take good care of their employees. A shortage of workers quickly gets filled. Its not as if deportations are going to leave open positions.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[e3m4n]

Masonry, Concrete (foundations patios etc), Roofing, Drywalling, Landscaping, with the exception of maybe electrical contractor and plumber, I've seen plenty of skilled trades with people that get nervous when a patrol car drives past.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[e3m4n]

think of it in terms of the pre dot-com collapse. Prior to the dot-com crash, if you were a tech you could practically demand any salary you wanted, verification of skill not required. After the dot-com crash it became much more difficult to even get pay increases. Things like Monster.com stopped being a bidding site for your skills and became more of a 'hope to find a job' site. Then came the housing collapse in 2008 and you see just how bad employers can mistreat employees and they just take it because its truly a buyers market and your options are feed your family or don't. Raising minimum wage doesnt solve this issue, it only helps create it. Sure the corporations have to pay more, but they just take it out of you everywhere else. So they pay you 20% more, but across the entire playing field, all their buddies are gouging you on all fronts another 30%, while your company gouges other employees via cost of goods sold. Its still a buyers market. The market has to become a sellers market for you to prosper. As long as the buyer of your services has the upper hand, he can treat/mistreat you as he sees fit.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[HornWumpus]

Deport the illegals too.

But first make it impossible for them to find work, they will just go home. Start at the highest paying jobs they currently do, work our way down to fruit picker.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[mjwx]

There are basically no more 'skilled trade' jobs near the Mexican border. They aren't actually very skilled, but they work cheap. Which isn't to say the average American 'skilled tradesman' is particularly skilled.

Megra could fill their deportation pipelines easily by raiding construction sites. They don't, basically never, filing complaints is futile. Construction workers don't bother, for 20 years now.

In Europe (Germany to be specific) the fines for employing someone without work papers is five figures/illegal, first offence. Plus constant checks for subsequent years. That's what we need, the wall is unnecessary.

You see, in Europe they fixed that problem by making the Illegals, legal. Basically allowing German companies to import cheap labour from eastern Europe. Now Germany is pretty much dependent on ensuring that there is a steady supply of cheap labourers coming into Germany from other parts of the EU.

They do this because the German leadership knows that if they got rid of all the Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians these jobs will not be taken up by Germans, rather they'll disappear. it's the same with the US. No American will work for what you pay a Mexican. This means you'll have to mow your own lawns, wash your own cars, pack your own bags at the supermarket (like we do here in Europe) and construction will now cost so much it'll be unaffordable for most Americans because you'll have to pay an American bricklayer wages an American would accept.

Kindly learn a bit about other countries, before you comment on them.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[david_thornley]

Democrats don't like deporting people, to make a sweeping generalization. Republicans don't like depriving businesses of cheap abusable labor, to make a similarly sweeping generalization. This means there isn't any impetus to make it difficult to hire illegal immigrants.

You are completely correct: penalties to the companies employing illegals would solve this problem nicely.

Re: TRUMP FTW!

[HornWumpus]

The % are entirely different. The USA has _far_ higher legal immigration than Germany, even if you count all the inter EU travel. Europe has only recently started to experience immigration flows on the scale the USA has had for decades, and it's upsetting the whole system.

Europe would not and does not tolerate the number of illegals working in the USA. Partly cultural, Germans are a bunch of goddamn law abiders. Won't even walk across an empty street against the light.

But Muh Amnesty

[Kunedog]

We were supposed to motivate the next round of illegal aliens!

Trump "says" a lot of things

[OffTheLip]

I'm reserving judgement on this one.

The Republicans own Congress

[rsilvergun]

and they'll get slaughtered in their primaries if they come to DACA's defense. It's the same problem they had with Obamacare but worse since in that case they could at least try to repeal it.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[halivar]

Even more so: to save the ACA, Republicans can simply do nothing (and they are). To save DACA, they must by means of legislation affirmatively extend it or make it permanent. Not happening.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[AmiMoJo]

I thought the problem with Obamacare was too many Republicans worried that the will lose the next election because so many of their constituents will lose their healthcare or have costs rocket up.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[UnknowingFool]

Yes, this Congress seems capable of doing nothing even though the GoP has control of both houses.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[cayenne8]

Yes, this Congress seems capable of doing nothing even though the GoP has control of both houses.

I hear ya...I had thought that the HPA or the Shush Act that would take suppressors off the NFA list and make them easier to attain (without long ATF paperwork and $200 tax stamp) and use by now.

But no...damned republicans can't seem to get shit done even with majority in both houses.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[computational super]

Yep, what I see are the most gutless of the gutless politicians moaning about how much they'd "really like to save this program and really don't support the president in this" while actually not doing any of the things that are within their power to actually save it so they can try to appeal to both sides simultaneously. In other words, politics as usual. At least Trump has been honest.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[bluefoxlucid]

Even Paul Ryan has spoken out against this. He's not Jeff Sessions, but he's also not the poster-boy for human compassion and tolerance toward anyone and anything he disagrees with. Ryan speaks of human compassion, of understanding, of the circumstances of a teenager being brought with parents to this country and growing up as an American. These are weighty things we must consider.

These people are here, they're working in our economy, and ejecting them is disruptive and costly. They've been around long enough to no longer have an impact on job availability--our labor force adjusts rapidly--and removing them will create temporary job openings, followed by a labor force adjustment to increase the proportion of job-seekers and return us to this current baseline. There's no economic benefit to ending DACA.

On the other hand, DACA provides us documentation as to the existence and location of a subset of illegal immigrants. We keep them renewing work permits. They pay taxes. They get an SSN now instead of an ITIN; if they become citizens, their work counts toward Social Security credit; and, as non-citizen residents, they are ineligible for Social Security benefits unless and until they receive said citizenship.

We have established a trust relationship between these people and ourselves. If we violate that trust--and we have already violated it by suggesting we might--then why would any undocumented immigrant ever present themselves to any government identification system ever again?

The Republicans are willing to speak out; they hardly need to even vote to pass this into law.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[Baron_Yam]

The Republican party is happy to fail at pretty much everything on their platform so long as doing so is the best way to maintain power.

Which likely means they're getting SOMETHING out of it and most of us just aren't seeing it or understanding the significance of what we're seeing.

Even my most negative assessment of politicians in general doesn't have them seeking high office for the sake of it. They want something, it's just not necessarily what they say they want, what they promise to do, or what they are seen to be doing.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[sl3xd]

A big problem there is the Republicans seem completely unwilling to engage in bipartisanship -- in fact, the threat of bipartisanship was used by Mitch McConnell to try to get Republicans to fall in line.

I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but it definitely seems the Republicans idea of bipartisanship is demanding Democratic capitulation, rather than any sort of compromise on their part.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[HornWumpus]

They can milk it for a few years.

It's a fucking financial mess and the Ds own it. The Rs will leave them twisting in the wind for a while.

It was passed broken, the Ds assuming they would be in charge when the shit hit the fan. Sucks to be them.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[Registered Coward v2]

and they'll get slaughtered in their primaries if they come to DACA's defense. It's the same problem they had with Obamacare but worse since in that case they could at least try to repeal it.

He's put Congress in a bind - DACA may be unpopular with Trump's base but is more broadly popular so if they let it die they may survive a primary but in some districts it may be an issue in the primary. If they pass legislation saving DACA they may get killed in a primary. Either way Trump wins - he gets to say to his base he kept his promise to kill DACA and killed it or Congress saved it despite his trying to kill it.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[jeff4747]

I thought the problem with Obamacare was too many Republicans worried that the will lose the next election because so many of their constituents will lose their healthcare or have costs rocket up.

Depends on which Republican. The "moderate" Republicans feared a backlash in their states.

Other Republicans were incensed that the bill did not revert the country back to our old "just die quickly" system. McConnell brought the latter group on board because the bill was poorly written enough that the individual insurance market would die, resulting in "just die quickly".

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[halivar]

I would rather they spent their working days naming post offices, but that's just me.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[mean pun]

More realistically: they wanted to repeal to stick it to President Obama, but when they got the chance the people let them know they liked their ACA health-insurance. In other words, they were listening to the people.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[Train0987]

I suspect that your idea of "bipartisanship" is "do what my side wants regardless of how many elections we've lost".

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[Tough Love]

they'll get slaughtered in their primaries if they come to DACA's defense

Slaughtered if they defend it, slaughtered if they don't. Either way it works out.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[sl3xd]

Nah, my view is more along the lines of:

Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong.

— Dwight Eisenhower

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[edtice1559]

It must have been an accident!

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[admiralh]

Trump has *not* been honest.

He doesn't actually need to do anything. He could simply leave the EO in place, and if the 20 AGs still want to sue, let them.

Plus, Trump is a coward. Instead of making the announcement himself, he sent Sessions out to do it. Trump will then blame everybody but himself for consequences of this incredibly short-sighted action.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[david_thornley]

It wouldn't take that many Republicans to put a DACA bill through, given D cooperation (which I think would be forthcoming). The only problem would be if Trump vetoed it, and he's sufficiently unpredictable so I don't know what would happen.

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[Registered Coward v2]

It wouldn't take that many Republicans to put a DACA bill through, given D cooperation (which I think would be forthcoming). The only problem would be if Trump vetoed it, and he's sufficiently unpredictable so I don't know what would happen.

While I agree Trump's unpredictable I also doubt he would veto as no matter what Congress does he will say he won and move on. Vetoing a bill would me he had to take a stand and it becomes his doing and he'd rather blame Congress whatever happens. I mean, he just got crammed down by the D's on the raising the debt ceiling limit; of course he is calling it a great deal he worked out.

Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[Anonymous Coward]

Pesky pen and phone isn't exactly the same as actually passing a law, eh?

And we won't even talk about the blatant constitutional issues around a pResident implementing a policy that ignores established law.

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[Tailhook]

This. Right here.

All Trump has done is obligate Congress to perform its duty; if the (R)s and whatever (D)s that care to join them wish to express their beltway "values" they can write a damn bill and pass it.

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[dr_canak]

That's all well and good,

and I'm sure Obama would have happily worked with congress to make this law, if he and congress had any ability to work together, which the last 4 some years of his presidency proved otherwise. Some blame Obama, some blame congress. I'll blame both.

Regardless, this is just evidence that the only guiding principle from which Trump operates is to unwind anything Obama had his name attached to. It's the most consistent behavior he's maintained throughout his early presidency.

People don't like DACA? Fine. Rolling it back is easy enough. As you point out, it's not a law. But why not simply grandfather everyone in, in perpetuity, and simply stop allowing new applicants.

I personally don't like that he is rolling it back, but so be it. I'm sure there are many who are quite happy. But doing so can be done in a much less provocative manner. Trump's desire to end the program entirely, and eventually send people back when their tenure expires, is just cruel. It's motivated by nothing more than some weird hard-on he has for everything related to Obama.

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[Anonymous Coward]

Pesky pen and phone isn't exactly the same as actually passing a law, eh?

And we won't even talk about the blatant constitutional issues around a pResident implementing a policy that ignores established law.

Obama's pen and phone bought them several years without fear of deportation, which the vast majority used to further their education and acquisition of marektable skills and experience. That's more than we can say for Trumps beloved "uneducated" and the rest of his basket of deplorables.

The alternative was to live in the limbo that Trump is forcing them back in to, with no further incentive to be productive contributors to American society.

Trump can't get Congress to act on anything, but you are pretending that this is all Obama's fault? We are banishing the wrong kinds of people.

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[aardvarkjoe]

People don't like DACA? Fine. Rolling it back is easy enough. As you point out, it's not a law. But why not simply grandfather everyone in, in perpetuity, and simply stop allowing new applicants.

It's funny, how everyone who likes amnesty for illegals always say, "we'll do this last amnesty, and then we'll start enforcing the laws. Honest! Promise!"

If you want cruel, how about the guy who promised amnesty to all these people when he knew damn well that he didn't have the legal authority to do so and it stood a good chance of being overturned?

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[thegarbz]

And we won't even talk about the blatant constitutional issues around a pResident implementing a policy that ignores established law.

That's good because you'd be quickly shot down in that there is established law that specifically puts it to the president to implement the policy.

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[kenh]

President Obama called this a temporary, stopgap measure when he announced it. He stated it wasn't amnesty, wasn't a path to citizenship - unfortunately, he left out the fact it also wasn't Constitutional.

His fellow Democrats seem to have forgotten what exactly Obama did (and more importantly did not) offer in DACA.

Re:Blame it on "Owe"Bama

[penandpaper]

IOW. I am going to create a problem that can be solved by something I want. Who needs compromise when I have manufactured outrage?

Damn politics are cynical these days and have been for a while.

Is DACA a law or a regulation?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

It sounds like DACA was just a regulatory statement from the previous head of the executive branch. If so, it seems the current president can kill it, and is being extra-nice by at least offering a grace period.

If you want things with the force of law, well then, pass LAWS, right?

Re:Is DACA a law or a regulation?

[penandpaper]

But I got a pen and a phone to get my way and a photo op. >:(

Now call the press! I got babies to kiss. Voters love that shit.

Re:Is DACA a law or a regulation?

[doctorvo]

It was neither law nor regulation. It was an application of "prosecutorial discretion" in a way that is likely unconstitutional.

Don't like the law ?

[RedK]

Change the law.

Simple concept. Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.

The Executive Branch does not make laws. DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers, with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch. Ending it is the right choice.

Re: Don't like the law ?

[doctorvo]

The police and the prosecutors have to decide what is in the public interest to enforce.

Prosecutorial decision is not unlimited, and DACA falls outside the limits of what is legally permissible.

That's why the sheriff and attorney general are usually elected positions.

And those elected officials have decided to exercise their prosecutorial decision differently now.

Re: Don't like the law ?

[RedK]

You're conflating discretionary powers and prosecutor's evaluation of indivual cases based on the strength of the evidence, with complete refusal to enforce laws as a matter of policy enforced from the top down.

Don't make this emotional and make false equivalencies. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced, subject to discretionary powers and the strength of evidence. If the Executive Branch wants to simply ignore a law completely, then they need to petition the Legislative to first change it.

This is not a decision the Executive Branch can make on its own.

Re:Don't like the law ?

[jeff4747]

DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers, with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch

Nope. When Congress passed a whole lot of immigration laws over the last few decades, it included in the laws that the Executive branch got to figure out how to implement the laws.

As long as the Executive branch was not granting citizenship, the laws gave the Executive branch all the "wiggle room" required to legally implement DACA.

The fix is Congress writing better laws such that the Executive branch does not have that wiggle room. But Congress hasn't done that in a very, very, very, very long time.

Re:Don't like the law ?

[thegarbz]

Executive Branch appointing itself powers

It did nothing of the sort and couldn't do anything of the sort, and has been posted above was argued as unconstitutional in front of the 5th circuit and yet found perfectly valid.

The executive branch did nothing more than what was asked of them by congress: establish the policy for immigration.

Re:Don't like the law ?

[Train0987]

Congress can no more grant extra powers to the President than they can remove powers from the President. Any law passed by Congress surrendering their powers to the President is unconstitutional on it's face. Amending the constitution is the only way to do that.

Re:Don't like the law ?

[slack_justyb]

Change the law.

Well there in lies the problem. The law as it does not say, "If here illegally, deport immediately." There's a basic outline about how one goes about legally immigrating here from another country. However, there's exceptions to that for humanitarian reasons, political prosecution, temporary work visas, people of strategic value, education purposes, and on and on and on and on and on and on. There's also laws that bar some types of folks from entering all together.

In addition to all of these exceptions, most of the laws either create a department under the President or leave to the Executive branch's guidance how to enforce that exception, ban, correction to law, etc.

DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers

Well if you feel that way then you should have a heart to heart with your member of Congress for granting that power to the President to read the law as they see fit. FYI, Congress has a nasty habit of passing incredibly vague laws and then leaving it to the President to actually bring the details. This is actually a sort of on purpose thing because it basically shifts blame for bad laws to the President rather the members that created the law. So if you are outraged about all of this, and I'm not one to say your outrage is misplaced, you should at the very least aim your outrage at the correct branch. This is equally true when you hear things like "Judge's writing laws from the bench". Again, this is mostly cited in cases where Congress wrote an incredibly vague law and a judge has to sort out what the meaning of the law is. Again, same reason, if things go sideways, it is easy for Congress to shift blame to the person clarifying it. It's easy to to write a law and then later go "That's not what we meant!!!" It is more politically risky to write a law that spells everything out.

with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch

That's not what happened. The Executive branch chose a course of action to implement a series of laws that Congress has passed over the last sixty years. Congress did not agree to that specific implementation but refuses to give more information about what they feel is the better way because it might cost them votes. You can think of it like this. On my way to work there's a posted speed limit. However, rarely is that enforced during rush hour unless the person in question is recklessly speeding. I'm not part of highway patrol so I cannot voice for "why" this happens, but I've seen cops sit and watch traffic uniformly moving five to seven MPH over the limit with not even a hint that anything will be done. The law is anyone speeding is breaking the law, but the implementation is vastly different considering circumstances. I won't pretend to know what factors play into that decision making.

Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.

You are quite correct on sustainable end of that statement, but incorrect in that the President isn't choosing laws to enforce or not enforce, but again I'll refer you to your closest Congressional Member to take that up with. The President is enforcing all laws, it is just how the President reads those laws and what they mean to his/her administration. There's no selection process, again, the 70 MPH limit could be read as explicitly nothing over 70 MPH or read as prevent reckless driving, when cops sit on the side and watch rush hour pass by moving at faster than that 70 MPH, I can only assume that they are taking the latter read on that, but I'm not a cop, so I could not say for sure. I digress however. Immigration policy is a very polarizing topic and members are sure to lose votes if they take a hard stance on either side. Thus, the method has been to take no firm stance and allow the current administration to deal with the matter. Now the cu

Re:Don't like the law ?

[shilly]

Really excellent comment

Re:Don't like the law ?

[sfcat]

Congress can no more grant extra powers to the President than they can remove powers from the President. Any law passed by Congress surrendering their powers to the President is unconstitutional on it's face. Amending the constitution is the only way to do that.

That's completely unworkable in the real world. In practice, Congress makes a law and the Executive enforces it. But the exact minutia of how a law is enforced must have discretion as to the most effective way to enforce that law. For instance, Congress can tell the military to fight a war with some country, how the war is fought is up to the generals (and reality) as long as they abide by the laws set forth by Congress. To expect every single minor detail to be inscribed in law would produce ridiculous (Vogon levels even) levels of bureaucracy. In practice in an area of public policy, Congress sets out a set of policies in law and the Executive handles the minutia of enacting it. Where that line is set is by Congress and they very often decide to give a very large amount of leeway for the Executive to enact policy often because they are career politicians and know that the correct decision today can be the wrong one tomorrow.

Re:Don't like the law ?

[thegarbz]

Congress can no more grant extra powers to the President than they can remove powers from the President. Any law passed by Congress surrendering their powers to the President is unconstitutional on it's face. Amending the constitution is the only way to do that.

Except they did nothing of the sort. They enacted a law that said the specific implementation of the policy to follow that law was up to the executive. That doesn't grant Obama any more powers than it does to any other government department that is asked to come up with policy. What Obama's office made was not a law.

But you don't need to believe me, you can read up the 5th Circuit's conclusion who ruled on the constitutional validity of what happened. (see links spread throughout responses to this story).

Re:Don't like the law ?

[david_thornley]

Nope. The President has the power to execute laws passed by Congress. If the laws say that something will be left for the Executive Branch to decide, then making and enforcing those decisions is perfectly Constitutional. It's not an extra power, it's delegation of power.

Wrong (stereo)typing

[SuperKendall]

That's because Trump is representative of the dying breed known as the 'Great White Male',

You seem to be confused. The real "great white male", the real dying breed is the typical imperialist liberal who wants government control over everything...

Trump represents the insurgence of the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of all races and backgrounds that are tired of inept government controlling everything, to ill ends for the people as the aristocrats on top get ever weather and more powerful.

It's ironic that in the end, the biggest symbol of the dying "Great White Male" was really Obama... Trump is just trying to reverse some of that damage.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

I don't think you understand the point of separate governments between the state and federal if you think the position is "federal == bad && state == good". Hint, power corrupts which causes tyranny. People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out. The federal government on the other hand, by it's nature represents a diverse set of ideas and politics and compromise is very hard. That means federal tyranny is harder to undo.

In addition, the role of the federal government should only deal with matters that deal with the states as a whole not the individual citizens. However, the state government will be closer to the citizens so should handle the more direct laws affecting the citizens.

Your straw-man is a tired and overused trope.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[cayenne8]

Funny how government control is bad when it's federal but it's just fine when the state does it.

OF COURSE IT IS OK!!

That's precisely how the US government was set up...that the majority of power was to reside within the States, with only a limited, fairly weak Federal Government.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[cayenne8]

Until the States lost their representation by having Senators elected by the general population, yes that is how the US govt was designed.

Frankly, I hope this can be changed back to how it was in the past.

Take all the $$ out of electing senators, and keep them more answerable to the states they come from....

Re:Wrong (stereo)typing

[gtall]

Trump represents nothing except himself. Jesus, how blind can you possibly be?

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Train0987]

"We're the Untied States of America, not the 50 individual countries of America." We are a Republic of individual states who joined that union under the premise that they would still be mostly soveriegn. It's depressing that basic civics is no longer taught in the 4th grade as it used to.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[cayenne8]

Please see the 10th Amendment that affirmed that the Constitution was to have most power reside with states:

From the Wikipedia article: "It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people."...

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

This x2.... Seriously, repeal the 17th amendment. It is a failure. It failed to deliver on any of the promises during the last century by it's supporters. It has only caused more problems.

Re:Wrong (stereo)typing

[Rakarra]

Trump represents the insurgence of the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of all races and backgrounds that are tired of inept government controlling everything, to ill ends for the people as the aristocrats on top get ever weather and more powerful.

So they elect an aristocrat at the top who is helping the aristocrats at the top instead of the poor huddled masses. Smart move, folks. They just got swindled.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Rakarra]

Frankly, I hope this can be changed back to how it was in the past.

Take all the $$ out of electing senators, and keep them more answerable to the states they come from....

People would actually have to pay attention to their state legislatures, then. Good luck with that. The Senators are far more accountable to the people of the state with the current system than if they were elected by the legislature. The days when people paid attention to any non-federal electoral office besides governor are long gone.

Re:Wrong (stereo)typing

[SuperKendall]

Fellow Aristocrats deny Trump is one; who are you to insist that he is?

Trump is rich, yes, but being rich does not automatically make you aristocratic.

Trump is ostentatious, yes, but even THAT does not make you an aristocrat.

You seem to be terribly confused about the workings of power.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[e3m4n]

example please?

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[e3m4n]

hence why you should be a libertarian

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Mr. Slippery]

People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out.

That was the theory. In reality, since the late 1800s it became easier for trusts, megacorps, and billionaires to buy overwhelming influence in state governments. So in the Progressive era, people started looking to the feds to protect them from that corruption.

But as the rich got richer, they just bought out the federal government too.

In a society suffering from an L curve as severe as ours, the balance of state and federal power doesn't matter. It's all the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules.

Re:Wrong (stereo)typing

[Tough Love]

Trump represents nothing except himself. Jesus, how blind can you possibly be?

Not true at all. Trump represents other things too, for example he represents avarice and pustulence. Hmm, well, maybe you are right, those things are also "himself".

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

. The Senators are far more accountable to the people of the state with the current system than if they were elected by the legislature.

Considering reelection rates for incumbents... but beyond that. It was never intended to be accountable to the people just as the federal judiciary isn't. When you have Montana senators with the same power as Californian Senators, popular opinion is rather... Irrelevant. Besides, that is what the House is for.

The point was to have a legislative body detached from the popular whims and passions of the people because they change so fast (hence 2 year terms for the House compared to 6 year Senate terms). Every promise that was made by the advocates of the 17th amendment has not happened. It didn't limit corruption and it increased money in politics. Instead of the Senate being a bulwark to the House it is identical with politics over state.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Green Mountain Bot]

People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it

Source?

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Sumus Semper Una]

power corrupts which causes tyranny

Ok, so it's a universal truth. That makes the state every bit as capable of corruption and tyranny as the federal government.

People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out.

That's the theory I keep hearing. But I also keep hearing that workers controlling the means of production solves a lot of problems too. I've yet to see either work as advertised in the real world.

The federal government on the other hand, by it's nature represents a diverse set of ideas and politics and compromise is very hard.

Doesn't that mean that compromise there is all the more important when it happens?

That means federal tyranny is harder to undo.

Why? You can vote a president out every 4 years, senators out every 6, or house members out every 2. Why is it any easier to overthrow state tyranny than federal tyranny if the federal government is not allowed to intervene? If the federal government cannot interfere with the state, what is so fundamentally different about the state that stops them from being able to do what you're afraid of the federal government doing or allows you to undo their changes any easier? Are you even talking about federal vs state any more or are you talking about executive vs legislative?

In addition, the role of the federal government should only deal with matters that deal with the states as a whole not the individual citizens.

How is immigration not a matter of the states as a whole? Should Arizona be allowed to say that anyone crossing its borders without documentation is considered a felon while Texas is allowed to say that anyone crossing its borders without documentation is a US citizen? You act as though there is always a clear line between "state problem" and "federal problem."

However, the state government will be closer to the citizens so should handle the more direct laws affecting the citizens.

Closer == less corrupt and tyrannical? So the Jim Crow laws were justified because they were closer to the people they affected? And they would have gone away without federal intervention because the people in the southern states would have overthrown the tyranny on their own? It's very easy to find historical precedent showing that your statement is not necessarily true.

How was anything you said not an attempt to explain that "federal == bad && state == good"? I keep hearing this theory that the states are less tyrannical than the federal government, but it seems to me that they *can't* be tyrannical because the federal government can overrule them if they try. So everyone makes the incorrect assumption that because the state governments currently aren't tyrannical, they are the ones that the power should be delegated to.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[TykeClone]

The senators' original constituents were not the people but the states themselves. As it is now, the states don't have a voice in the federal government.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Rakarra]

Considering reelection rates for incumbents... but beyond that. It was never intended to be accountable to the people just as the federal judiciary isn't. When you have Montana senators with the same power as Californian Senators, popular opinion is rather... Irrelevant. Besides, that is what the House is for.

I suppose I should clarify -- in ye olden days, when the federal government was much more limited and the State was the thing you were supposed to pay attention to, Federal Senators were elected by State legislatures -- legislatures elected by the people. Nowadays, no one even knows who his state representatives are, nor do they care. People have stopped paying attention to the states, and they see the federal level as being the only one which matters. Because of that, there's more of a separation between the people and the officials, at least more of one than I think the founders intended.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

That makes the state every bit as capable of corruption and tyranny as the federal government

Yes, that is why the states are a check on the federal government and the federal government is a check on the states.

I've yet to see either work as advertised in the real world.

Case in point, marijuana.

Doesn't that mean that compromise there is all the more important when it happens?

Yes, but compromise is hard. Especially when you have either side feeling like the other isn't being honest about their compromises. An example I think is gun laws/restrictions. Everyone agrees that there are reasonable gun laws that can be put in place. We have those put in place that we all agree on. It becomes an issue when the goal is gun bans or unreasonable laws and using crocodile tears to sell it.

Why? You can vote a president out every 4 years, senators out every 6, or house members out every 2.

You can vote for your one senator and one House rep and POTUS. It requires everyone else in the country to think your issue important. See the polls that check if constituents trust congress (they don't) unless it's their congressmen.

Why is it any easier to overthrow state tyranny than federal tyranny if the federal government is not allowed to intervene?

State is smaller and any law is will affect people more directly. I didn't say the federal government is not allowed to intervene. Again, an example is marijuana. The Feds are stuck with the DEA classifying it schedule one without anyone's input. Now, many states are saying no your wrong.

different about the state that stops them from being able to do what you're afraid of the federal government doing or allows you to undo their changes any easier?

The federal government is more powerful. It has the military. Is larger. Slower and more bureaucratic and set up to be as much. The Battle of Athens becomes the civil war. Have you participated in your local and state politics?

Immigration is something that the constitution gives power to the federal government because if Arizona decides its immigration policy and the contract between the states is free movement then the neighboring states feel the effects of Arizonans decision.

Closer == less corrupt and tyrannical

I never said that. Battle of Athens vs civil war.

Didn't black people rise up against jim crow laws before the Civil rights act? You made my point because jim crow laws had a direct effect on people and it took those people to stand up against it. Their actions convinced enough people to get the federal government to intervene. ... I don't think it shows my statement wrong I would argue it shows it true. What would have happened if Jim Crow was a federal law?

Anyone saying states can't be tyrannical is only you. Again, the state is a check on the federal power just as the federal government is a check on state power. The difference is that the federal government is designed to be slow. It is more powerful than the states.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

That has always been the case and probably always will be. How do you limit corruption and tyranny? I think the only reason you think the balance between state and federal power doesn't matter is because the states have been neutered of any power partly because of the civil war.

In reality, the difference between the states and federal government is as different as the civil war compared to the battle of athens.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

Schedule an appointment with your state legislators and then schedule and appointment with your congresscritters. Tell me the results.

I've had state legislatures in my home. I have never met my congresscritters in person.

Do you ask for a source that water is wet?

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Green Mountain Bot]

Getting a meeting doesn't mean you have any more control, or that your local elected officials are any less corrupt. It just means the local representative has a less busy schedule. Here's the deal: fewer people know who their local reps are, and fewer still care. They are not as closely watched, and they are more tightly tied in with local powerbrokers. Those factors work together to create a considerably larger potential for corruption than you'll find at the national level, where everyone is being watched at all times, where there are more competing interests, and where representatives are more likely to be known.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

I think in some instances separation between the people and officials are a good thing. James Madison was concerned of "excessive democracy" because the passion of the people and the politicians using that passion for their own ends can be counter to the needs of the nation.

We need a legislative body divorced of the tumultuous popularity contests that the people demand. There needs to be a bulwark to keep mob rule in check. Right now, there doesn't seem to by any check against the people tearing at each others throats (politically, physically, and legally) at the expense of stability and future of the nation. Laws are drafted to create a problem so that an ideological solution be implemented regardless of efficacy.

DACA puts hundreds of thousands of people in limbo because not citizen not illegal, a giant band aide that doesn't solve the problem that will have to be torn off. Deportation isn't a solution if the original country says no nor is that moral if someone lived here their whole life. Amnesty is the only answer. Normally, if you want amnesty you compromise with stronger border protection but that is no longer an option because it's racist because of popular passions turning into mob rule from sound bite rhetoric and crocodile tears. Something fundamental to defining a nation, a border, now becomes a political football for politicians and a ideological purity test to judge morality. That is not healthy for any nation. This is not the first time this has been done where laws/executive action create a problem to later implement an ideological solution.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

It requires the electorate and the legislature to have maturity in deciding something like a senator. That is not a bad thing. If a state cannot get its shit together they have less power.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

Getting a meeting means you can see what they are doing easier. Jeeze. Are you really this cynical about civic participation? Do you really not value meeting and understanding the people that represent you in the legislature? ... What is wrong with you?

People don't care because states have been neutered of power.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[david_thornley]

At which point you've just added all that money to influencing the election of legislators. Congratulations on swamping State government elections with money, making the legislature less accountable to the people.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[Green Mountain Bot]

I'm cynical. You're naive. Getting a meeting doesn't allow you to see anything a representative doesn't want you to see. And our representatives are so polarized, eve (especially!) at the state level, that you're not going to change anyone's mind just by meeting with them. You get a pat on the head and they do what they're going to do anyway. Unless, of course, you have the ability to grease some wheels - ie, corruption.

Re: Wrong (stereo)typing

[penandpaper]

Never had a state rep in your house, have you ?

"factual"

[SuperKendall]

How funny you claim something is "factual" with no proof behind it - at this point people are pretty used to liberals simply lying about something that want to be true but is the opposite of what they say.

In the end, the lies you tell and believe yourself hurt you more than anyone else...

Re: "factual"

[backslashdot]

Uh those numbers have been flipped:

In 1992 the number of murders was 23,760.
In 2015 the number of murders was 15,696.

The amount reduced!!
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/...

Post a valid link, and assume people won't check it??

Re: "factual"

[Train0987]

The better explanation for the decreased crime rate is the explosion in private gun ownership.

Re: "factual"

[Chryana]

Good luck showing the causation link in that case too. I'm sure that will not prevent you from reaching whatever conclusion you like.

Re: "factual"

[sinij]

The better explanation for the decreased crime rate is the explosion in private gun ownership.

I think even better explanation is an increase in per capita cheese consumption.

Re: "factual"

[Train0987]

Sure, compare the murder rate in cities that have tightened already strict gun-control policies with municipalities who have relaxed their standards (i.e. concealed carry). It's more than a causal relationship.

Re: "factual"

[Chryana]

I think you're both wrong (you and the OP), but at least the original argument had the merit that it would be trivial to demonstrate. Just plot the number of illegal immigrants vs the murder rate, and you'll see if there is a correlation. The point you make would be extremely difficult (and time consuming) to demonstrate. The regulatory landscape is very complex, and will often go both ways (restrict and relax) at the same time, making any analysis very difficult. Even if you only did this for the 20 largest cities in the US, it would still be a lot of work. Your two lines post goes nowhere near proving anything like that.

Re: "factual"

[cryptizard]

Actually gun ownership has gone steadily down, so that's entirely wrong. But hey, don't be discouraged, maybe next time you make up a fact off the top of your head you will be accidentally right! http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%2...

Re: "factual"

[Train0987]

Jesus man those are percentages. The US population has increased almost 50% since 1980. As I said, private gun ownership has exploded.

Re:"factual"

[Namarrgon]

From your own link, very first paragraph:

“I wanted to know whether crime rates go up when immigrants come into the country—plain and simple.” He found that, contrary to the assumptions of many Americans, the answer was a clear “no” for violent crime.

Kind of you to cite evidence to bolster the GP's claim, but it does make your last sentence look particularly ironic now.

Re: "factual"

[cryptizard]

lol okay, now you are changing the definition of "exploded" to "anything that is at all tied to population increase." Literally any type of ownership of anything has exploded according to your logic. Maybe crime was reduced by the explosion of sex toy ownership? People have better things to do by themselves now.

Which amendment ?

[aepervius]

I keep hearing from Session and others "this was unconstitutional". Well then if it was, which amendment or part of the constitution did it break ? No seriously, since you seem to hold the same argument , maybe you can tell us ?

Re:Which amendment ?

[rock_climbing_guy]

cayenne8 stated that President Obama did not have the authority under the US Constitution to enact DACA unilaterally. He says that in order to enact DACA, an act of Congress is required.

Re:Which amendment ?

[cayenne8]

I keep hearing from Session and others "this was unconstitutional". Well then if it was, which amendment or part of the constitution did it break ? No seriously, since you seem to hold the same argument , maybe you can tell us ?

Remember, the US constitution lists the limited, enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Govt.

The powers granted to the different branches comes from the constitution.

The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.

Remember in the US government, laws come from congress ONLY. The president does not create laws, but is there to enforce the laws created by congress.

. With DACA, Obama was pretty much trying to create new law where none existed before.

I hope that helps.

Re:Which amendment ?

[danbert8]

You are looking at the Constitution backwards. It enumerates the limited powers of the Federal government. The question should be "What part of the Constitution gives the President power to change immigration laws?" If no part of the Constitution gives the President that power, then it is unconstitutional.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.

And remember, Obama was called the "Deporter In Chief" for how fervently he was deporting them... More than 2.5 million were removed. He was not soft on immigration.

Re:Which amendment ?

[xx_chris]

Article 2, Section 1.

However, if you think that DACA is unconstitutional then why wasn't it successfully challenged? By comparison, the AZ state law attempting to limit DACA got tossed.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Koby77]

Article 1 section 1 was violated. Law must first be enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the executive branch. Good job, you just failed middle school civics.

Re:Which amendment ?

[RedK]

The similar legislation, DAPA, that applied to parents, was overtuned and the same legal arguments could overturn DACA if it were ever challenged. 10 state AGs threatened to do just that if the White House did not act on DACA before September 5th.

So it's not that it wasn't successfully challenged. It's that it was about to be and the precedents meant it didn't really stand a chance.

Re:Which amendment ?

[pnutjam]

The "law" was merely a prioritization of limited resources. If we had nots of idle ICE agents and immigration courts with open schedules, it could have been overturned. Barring that, it's a Presidential prerogative.

Re:Which amendment ?

[vux984]

DACA wasn't law. It was "policy".

You know, the same way there is a law against speeding, and then a myriad of policy that goes into enforcing it. Where I live the law says speeding is exceeding the posted speed limit. In practice, the usual policy is not to stop anyone within 10km/h. And in practice the police only selectively enforce it -- high traffic areas, accident prone areas, some might point cynically at areas where the limit is set to low as 'revenue generating' areas. (I KNOW this is a real issue in some areas, im less convinced it is a significant motivation locally.) Meanwhile, in practice the police are mostly enforcing the cellphone ban, because that is what they have been directed to focus on that. So speed traps are rare right now, but cell phone traps are all over the place. They'll still bust you for speeding if you are obvious / dangerious / etc but that's not what they're looking for.

DACA was kind of the same thing... basically it was policy directing immigration to be lenient in specific cases (like not enofrcing a speedlimit if you are 1km/h over -- even though the law says that is illegal) and directing officers not to bother even looking for those cases, and to focus on something else instead.

THAT is well within the purview of the executive branch of government. Enforcment policy, and enforcement priorities is WELL within the purview of the government.

Did DACA overstep the bounds of policy into creating new law? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, given that it has survived plenty of constitutional challenges already... e..g http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/op...

Personally, think DACA should be ended in favor of real legislation that does what DACA does. However that is not what the Trump administration is doing. They're just ending the policy because they want to, not because of any constitutionality. And that's fine, that's the new administrations prerogative; I don't agree with it... but the Trump administration has the same authority to set policy as Obama did.

Re:Which amendment ?

[jeff4747]

The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.

Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.

That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Kierthos]

Except that if it didn't stand a chance, then why bother having former Keebler Elf and current Trial-size AG Jeff Sessions come out and announce it was ending?

I mean, they could have let those 10 states take it to the Supreme Court, and if it didn't stand a chance, then SCOTUS would have handled that.

As it stands now, Trump has done nothing but thrown a bone to his base, and shuffled the decision off to Congress. I mean, yes, it kicks the problem immediately away from him, but there's actually more of a chance that Congress, between the Democrats and moderate Republicans might actually bring back DACA. (I say more of a chance, because, again, by your reasoning, if DACA stood no chance, then any chance it has in Congress is greater. I mean, there are already a few Republicans coming out and saying what Trump did was cruel and pointless.)

Re:Which amendment ?

[cayenne8]

Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.

That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.

Well, I think it is still the law of the land that if you are caught and found to be here illegally, then you are to be deported.

Pretty simple actually.

If they don't like that, then congress should change or make new laws addressing such.

Re:Which amendment ?

[cayenne8]

However, if you think that DACA is unconstitutional then why wasn't it successfully challenged?

Actually, I believe there are at least 10 states that were about to bring suit on DACA, and I believe with the precedent set by throwing out DAPA(?), that DACA would have been tossed too.

This was the president expediting the inevitable and saving some legal time and $$$.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Bodhammer]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news...

“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've gotta have some partners to do it,” Obama said.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

Re:Which amendment ?

[Rakarra]

Article 1 section 1 was violated. Law must first be enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the executive branch. Good job, you just failed middle school civics.

Obama did not create a new law with DACA, he simply refused to enforce an existing law. Or at least, to only enforce it after a certain time period had passed.

Re:Which amendment ?

[nine-times]

The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.

Congress has the power to create laws, but the Executive branch has a a fair amount of latitude in deciding how to put them into effect and enforce them. If it were simply unconstitutional, someone who opposed it could have sued, and the courts would have decided that it was unconstitutional, and that would have been the end of it.

The reality is, it's a bit of a grey area. It probably would have survived in court, but it's probably better for Congress to make legally binding reforms.

But also, this isn't happening because someone decided, "Oh, well technically, legally, this should have been handled in Congress, so we'll let Congress handle it." If that were the case, Congress could have passed reforms at any time. This is happening now because a lot of Trump supporters are anti-immigrant, and he wants to keep their support.

Re:Which amendment ?

[jeff4747]

Well, I think it is still the law of the land that if you are caught and found to be here illegally, then you are to be deported.

Pretty simple actually.

It's simple in a pithy statement on Slashdot. However actually implementing it is not.

Congress did not want to bother figuring out implementation details, so Congress did what they have done for more than 80 years. Pass a law giving an extremely vague goal, and authorize the Executive branch to figure out the details.

Re:Which amendment ?

[RedK]

So instead of using 2 hours of time by 2 people to end action that is seen by most as unconstitutional, we let the courts go on a lengthy battle, that needs to get appealed to every level of the Judiciary, over months if not years ?

Inefficient. This way, Congress (the actual Legislative branch) gets to fix the laws as it should.

Re:Which amendment ?

[petermgreen]

Afaict it went beyond mere selective enforcement. They also handed people under DACA work permits and under some circumstances gave them "advance parole" allowing them to leave and return to the US.

Re:Which amendment ?

[fuzznutz]

The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.

Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.

That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.

What the Executive Order giveth, the Executive Order can taketh away. This is a lesson lost on some...

Re:Which amendment ?

[Cyryathorn]

DACA is not just a matter of leniency or allocation of resources. It created a whole new class of work permit, and the attendant administrative apparatus.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Koby77]

While this was regarding the DAPA, not DACA, the issues are very similar, and yes, Obama did usurp the power of congress by declaring that the INS can declare anyone in the United States to be here legally and grant them a work permit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

Obama did far more than just not enforce a law with this program.

Re:Which amendment ?

[squiggleslash]

With DACA, Obama was pretty much trying to create new law where none existed before.

It was more of a "We're not going to enforce the law under this narrow set of circumstances, which we can justify because aside from anything else we don't have the power to fully enforce the law against everyone, and we have quite a bit of discretion."

One note: part of the reason why there's no law explicitly protecting Dreamers is that Congress is completely dysfunctional, and while there was a majority (inside Congress and with the public in general) in favor of, say, what Marco Rubio was trying to do, there was no practical way to get it passed. There's talk of another attempt to do so, but tying it to something utterly poisonous to Democrats (say, Wall funding), which will again ensure it's sunk.

Trump is but one horrible character in a cast of Washington's worst. If you want to get this fixed, it's probably time to lobby Congress, but don't expect anything to actually happen.

Re:Which amendment ?

[danbert8]

1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

So the Constitutional authority to determine immigration laws is based on a simple statement that executive power is held by a representative that is elected? How is this marked informative or modded up? Article 2, Section 1 is solely dedicated to the requirements for electing the President and contains no powers at all. Hello mods, don't assume just because a reference is given that a post is informative. Check the damn reference.

Re:Which amendment ?

[RedK]

DACA granted work permits to people without a status allowing them to get such a permit. It was not merely a decision to not enforce provisions on the books, it was a program granting added privileges to a group of people without force of law.

Re:Which amendment ?

[danbert8]

He's shuffling a decision off to Congress that was Congress' decision in the first place... I hate Trump, but I can't disagree with his reasoning here.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, how many depends on how they were counted. Turning away or catching at the border was included as deportations, which was a change in how they were being counted. I could be wrong on that though.

Re:Which amendment ?

[superdave80]

which amendment or part of the constitution did it break

That part that clearly states that congress shall have the power to pass laws, and that the President is only able to approve/veto laws passed by congress?

Re: Which amendment ?

[ganjadude]

if we compare apples to apples, deportations were down 43% more were turned away at the border, which in the past wasnt counted

Re:Which amendment ?

[superdave80]

If it's a prioritization of limited resources, how did Obama find the resources to hand out temporary work permits to all of these people, but not the resources to send them back to their home country? Answer: He didn't WANT to send them back.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Tenebrousedge]

As long as Antifa remains the public face of 'the left'

This is equally and oppositely as wrong as saying all conservatives are fascists.

Re:Which amendment ?

[TemporalBeing]

The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.

Not quite. Yes, the Executive Branch is the enforcer and executor of the Laws passed by Congress. Guidance (e.g Executive Orders, Regulations, etc) are required to be within the written (Statutory) laws.

DACA was an Executive Order from Obama, however, it contradicts the written laws passed by Congress. DACA explicitly prevents portions of the government from doing their job according to the written law passed by Congress.

Re: Which amendment ?

[MattKeith]

I'm hoping Congress steps up to protect the dreamers as they actually seemed like a good group of people. This was never sufficient as an executive order. I know some people have morgages, so that sucks.. but no different than buying one on a Visa and having to sell if it expires..

Re:Which amendment ?

[TemporalBeing]

The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.

Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.

That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.

And yet Congress chose not to pass the Dreamer's Act which is what would have authorized DACA if it had passed. But it was never passed, and Obama decided to enact DACA through Executive Order instead because Congress chose not to. Yet, anyone familiar with both Dreamer's Act and DACA would recognize that Dreamer's Act is required for DACA to be legal - and since it wasn't passed DACA is therefore an illegal overreach of the Executive branch.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 places the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" as one of the roles of Congress.

The powers of the executive (the President) are actually pretty limited in the Constitution:

Article 2

Section 2

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Darinbob]

The president is allowed to not enforce the laws, or put priority of some laws above others. Of course congress should be making the laws but it has spent an extremely long period of time refusing to consider such laws. Now there have been 6 years since DACA and still no congressional action regarding it.

Granted, congress is in a perpetual stalemate now that being seen to even discuss things rationally with politicians from the opposing party very often means being kicked out at the next primary election. Each party has this perpetual naive hope that they'll get a super majority soon and so any compromise today is premature.

Re:Which amendment ?

[ganjadude]

giving them work visas is above and beyond not enforcing the law. if he simply didnt go out of his way to deport them BUT he still upheld that they had no rights to jobs and other benefits, you would be correct and there would be no constitutional concerns, but he went above and beyond his scope

Re:Which amendment ?

[Darinbob]

Except that there's no requirement how to spend the INS budget. So the effort is spent on securing the border and catching recent illegal immigration rather than hunting down college students who haven't been in mexico since they were a baby. There's not an urgent crisis that demands we do something about DACA kids now.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

It's not "as they see fit"...it's "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

Anyway, if DACA had only been "enforcement discretion" you'd have a point. The executive could choose to devote limited prosecutorial resources along lines that would leave undocumented kids alone.

But DACA did a lot more than that. It provided work authorizations, travel authorizations (allowing illegal aliens to reenter the country), and created a self-funded agency without Congressional authorization (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law").

It was shot through with Constitutional problems. That DACA for Parents order was enjoined for just those reasons and the various States threatening to go to court over DACA would have based their arguments on the same reasons and likely would prevail on the same grounds.

DACA as a program, had it been done as an act of Congress, would almost certainly be all the good things people want it to be. But as a whim of Obama's pen, it was always suspect and subject to being undone at the whim of some other President. Indeed, Obama is seeing all his legacy being unwound simply because he spent so much effort bypassing Congress that he built his house on sand.

Re:Which amendment ?

[skids]

...and if those provisions were challenged and found wanting, the rest of the policy would still stand. It's not an all-or-nothing situation. So it's a detail not worth getting hung up on in the larger conversation.

Re:Which amendment ?

[hey!]

Your answer does not actually address the poster's question. The legal justification for President Obama's power to enact DACA was based on powers (supposedly) statutorily delegated to the Executive Branch by Congress.

Now you can argue that the Obama Administration overreached by misinterpreting Congressional statutes, and that'd be at least plausible. But that's not what the Trump administration is claiming. AG Sessions is claiming that establishing DACA was unconstitutional.

Now nobody (almost nobody) suggests that Congress doesn't have the authority to create a program like DACA; so to argue that DACA is unconstitutional you'd have to show that Congress's power to delegate its functions were limited in some way. For that it's quite reasonable to ask for chapter and verse citations; or at least legal precedent.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

I suggest you go off and read the US Code as it relates to Aliens.

8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

8 U.S. Code 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens

None of those say anything about letting the Executive branch hammer out the details. The law provides specifics, when the executive are expected to implement faithfully.

Also consider that when Congress chooses to *not* do a thing, that's doing a thing. E.g., in 2007, when the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was discussed in the Senate, which would have given a path to eventual citizenship to a large majority of illegal entrants in the country, significantly increased legal immigration and increased enforcement. The bill failed to pass a cloture vote, essentially killing it. That's not ignoring the need to do something, that's actively not doing it. Congress spoke and the President doesn't get to just go off and make up his own laws.

The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States as they were intended.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Darinbob]

I object to the use of "Trial size" to describe Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, formerly the honorable senator from the great state of Alabama. I suggest you use "Fun Size" instead.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

What is this magical flimsy law that you're referencing here?

The DREAM Act (in various incarnations) has been introduced multiple times and never passed Congress.

Some of the last significant immigration laws were passed back in the 90's.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) represents an effort by Congress to strengthen and streamline U.S. immigration laws. The Act was designed to improve border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents and increasing interior enforcement by agencies charged with monitoring visa applications and visa abusers.

Employment eligibility verification guidelines are also incorporated into the Act, including sanctions for employers who fail to comply with the regulations and restrictions on unfair immigration-related employment practices, as well as provisions governing the dispersement of government aid to aliens.

It lists a lot of things such that "The Attorney General is directed..." but not a lot of executive discretion is in the text.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/de...

Re:Which amendment ?

[rock_climbing_guy]

Which part? Perhaps we could start with the part where it says that Congress makes laws. Maybe that part.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

'It was more of a "We're not going to enforce the law under this narrow set of circumstances, which we can justify because aside from anything else we don't have the power to fully enforce the law against everyone, and we have quite a bit of discretion."'

No, it wasn't. It created a work visa where Congress had not authorized it. It spent money that Congress had not appropriated--Obama tried to bypass Congress by trying to make the program funded from the application fees but the Constitution is pretty clear on that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law".

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

DAPA was not legislation.

"On November 20 and 21, 2014, President Barack Obama announced a series of administrative reforms of immigration policy, collectively called the Immigration Accountability Executive Action. The centerpiece of these reforms is an expansion of the current Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) initiative for the parents of U.S citizens and lawful permanent residents who meet certain criteria."

"On May 26, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction, with the result that the hold on implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA remained in place while the Fifth Circuit considered the appeal of the preliminary injunction itself.

"On November 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The majority accepted the lower court’s findings that Texas has standing to bring this lawsuit based on the additional costs it would incur to issue driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of expanded DACA and DAPA. The court acknowledged that judicial review is unavailable under the APA where a matter is committed to agency discretion and that the government’s immigration enforcement priorities fall squarely within this category; nonetheless, the majority also found that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking because DAPA and expanded DACA determinations are non-discretionary. In addition, the majority held that the new deferred action initiatives are arbitrary and capricious because the federal government did not have authority to promulgate them under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

https://www.americanimmigratio...

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

Regarding DACA, that would be heard if something wasn't done.

https://www.texastribune.org/2...

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and officials from nine other states on Thursday urged the Trump administration to end an Obama-era program that’s allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to live and work in the country without fear of being deported.

In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Paxton urged the White House to rescind the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. DACA applies to undocumented immigrants that came to the country before they were 16 years old and were 30 or younger as of June 2012. It awards recipients a renewable, two-year work permit and a reprieve from deportation proceedings.

Re: Which amendment ?

[HornWumpus]

'The left' (e.g. the mayor of Berkeley) has been calling off their local cops when Antifa throws tantrums.

That enables them and keeps them in the news. Which is as bad for the Ds as having the KKK on the news is bad for the Rs.

Both sides have extremist problems, but the Ds are deluded that their red children are somehow 'not evil'.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

True. However regarding the 5th Circuit, " the majority also found that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking because DAPA and expanded DACA determinations are non-discretionary. In addition, the majority held that the new deferred action initiatives are arbitrary and capricious because the federal government did not have authority to promulgate them under the Immigration and Nationality Act. "

Re:Which amendment ?

[e_pluribus_funk]

The AZ law attempting to limit DACA got tossed because the states don't have standing. Unfortunately, lack of standing keeps a lot bad actions from being ruled unconstitutional.

Re: Which amendment ?

[kaatochacha]

What about all that "good group of people" in Africa? or Haiti? or Eastern Europe?
You're picking and choosing based on geography.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Green Mountain Bot]

The personnel needed to issue permits is entirely different from (and considerably less costly, and numerous) the personnel needed to conduct raids, put people through the legal system, and escort them out of the country.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Green Mountain Bot]

His size is the only thing fun about him.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

Obama: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. ... [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]”

Obama: “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.”

He should have listened to Himself.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Tenebrousedge]

Good thing I didn't say that. 'Public face' is not the same as 'all are'.

Good thing that's not relevant to the point. The same argument can be made of both sides.

The only thing 'the right' has to do to push Stormfront off the front page is call them out and stop making excuses for them. By not doing that they are encouraging them. For a group with the kind of horrible violent history 'the right' has, controlling authoritarian impulses is the minimum we should expect from them.

It's a stupid argument no matter who makes it. The reason you're seeing headlines about it is that there's an entire industry set up to make sure that Americans are afraid of what they need to be afraid of on any given week. Generally, it's more useful with conservatives, who respond well to the idea that {{jews/gays/blacks/queers/illegals/druggies}} are a threat. On the liberal side the bogeymen seem to be Trump and Neo-Nazis, but it doesn't seem to be a good enough bogeyman to win them elections, so far.

Either way, it's best not to make arguments that assume that your opponents are all bad because some of them are bad. It's technically a fallacy, but also, if you really feel the need to play the game where we oversimplify these groups, I'm pretty sure that the tide of popular opinion is not going to come down how you want.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Rakarra]

As long as Antifa remains the public face of 'the left',

But they aren't. I haven't been able to find much of any support for Antifa other than Antifa itself.

Re:Which amendment ?

[sl3xd]

The Act was designed to improve border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents and increasing interior enforcement by agencies charged with monitoring visa applications and visa abusers.

So in other words, the law was supposed to "impose criminal penalties" for a host of things which were already illegal, and requiring more spending by more agencies, while providing very little additional funding?

That definitely sounds like Congress waving its hands.

Even with illegal immigration, there are laws that have to be followed before anyone is deported, and each deportation conducted by ICE cost taxpayers an average of $10,854 in fiscal 2016.

The agency literally runs out of money deporting people. Effectively, there a limited number of "tickets" out of country, and the Executive gets to decide how to prioritize the passengers.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Tenebrousedge]

Personally I blame Hollywood for not giving us more positive cultural depictions of Nazis.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Deadstick]

...and, as Mr. Bumble said, sometimes the law is a ass.

Re:Which amendment ?

[sexconker]

The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit.

Wrong. They must be executed faithfully, fairly, and equally.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

I'm not holding the IIRIA out as some sort of good thing, but it is a concrete example of immigration law passed by Congress. You obviously didn't even bother to look at it. It runs some 252 pages of law. It's filled with statements like " the Attorney General shall not grant such waiver unless...", "the Attorney General shall not make an adverse determination...", "The Attorney General shall not permit an alien to...", "The Attorney General may waive the penalties imposed by this section...", "The Attorney General has sole discretion to waive clause...", and "NO COMPROMISE.—The Attorney General may not compromise the amount of such penalty under this paragraph."

So while there is a provision for discretion at times, the limitations and applicability is pretty clearly spelled out and likewise spelled out when discretion is not permitted by the law.

It is hardly "waving hands". You're acting like Congress passed a law that said "No illegal immigration." and left all the rest up to interpretation.

And you're also ignoring the part of DACA where work permits were created out of thin air. Congress wrote some laws that clearly defined who may receive work permits, the conditions under which they may be granted, their duration, etc. DREAMERs/DACA/DAPA people are not among them. Providing them work permits (something only Congress can do) and the similar actions in DACA/DAPA are the problematic areas, not the deferred prosecution.

But ultimately, if Obama can create the program with a stroke of his pen, Trump can dismantle it the same way.

A side note [insert lawyer joke]...the DOJ lawyers who argued Obama's DAPA case in 5th Circuit were ordered to take ethics classes after the judge found them to collectively be "intentionally deceptive".

"A federal judge ordered the Justice Department to send its lawyers back to remedial ethics classes Thursday after finding that the administration repeatedly misled the court in the high-profile challenge to President Obama’s deportation amnesty. Judge Andrew S. Hanen said the lawyers knew the administration was approving amnesty applications but actively hid that information both from him and from the 26 states that had sued to stop the amnesty. Worse yet, even after the court ordered a halt to the whole amnesty, the Department of Homeland Security approved several thousand more applications, in defiance of the court’s strict admonition, Judge Hanen said, counting at least four separate times the government’s attorneys misled him.

"In a blistering order, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville accused the Justice Department lawyers of lying to him during arguments in the case, and he barred them from appearing in his courtroom. He also demanded that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch provide a “comprehensive plan” within 60 days describing how she will prevent unethical conduct in the future, as well as making sure the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility effectively prevents misconduct among its lawyers. He also said that any Justice Department lawyer who wants to appear in a state or federal court in any of the 26 states who filed suit to block Mr. Obama’s executive actions should be required to take an annual three-hour ethics course for the next five years.

Re:Which amendment ?

[NaCh0]

"It probably would have survived in court"

Do you have a factual basis for thinking DACA would survive in court? Because there is a lot of evidence to say you are wrong.

Look at what happened to DAPA (the parent act similar to DACA). The whole reason DACA is in the news today is because the same group of attorneys who took DAPA through the courts was preparing the same exercise on DACA.

Re:Which amendment ?

[TemporalBeing]

Which laws by Congress does it contradict? Be specific.

No, there's nothing to say that the Executive is not the branch that gets to decide how to prioritize which aliens are to be deported immediately, and which aliens get *deferred* deportation.

That's what the "D" in DACA stands for, right? DACA was supposed to be a temporary action that *DEFERS* deportation for these individuals until Congress can actually get its shit together and pass immigration reform.

handing out work permits (which are controlled by quota by Congress) to those that don't even qualify? Yeah - that's in there too. But DACA pretty much flaunts the various immigration laws as a whole.

And DACA was never really a "temporary action until Congress gets its act together" - it was done in explicitly after Congress refused to pass such a measure (Dreamer's Act) that would have done exactly that. It was done for political points only, not because it was actually legal to do - but rather that Obama knew he had enough control via Democrats in Congress to keep any Articles of Impeachment tossing him from office, and the Democrats (generally, but not entirely, supporting it) wouldn't be an issue with it.

Had a Republican President implemented DACA the Democrats would have impeached him outright.

Re:Which amendment ?

[sl3xd]

Look, I explicitly avoided even mentioning DACA, and you shoot out ten paragraphs as if I'm a huge supporter. I'm not.

I'm not a fan of the way Congress (any congress) passes bills that cost billions of dollars per year — and then refuses to pay for it.

Immigration is one facet to the problem: deporting immigrants is expensive. By US law, they have a right to a hearing. Even if they are cleared to be deported, it costs time and money to transport them (not unlike any other government detainee).

When Congress failed to pass an updated budget from 2011-2015, it left funding at 2010 levels; unfortunately during that time, the drug war in Mexico and Ecuador drove a surge of refugees to the US: more people to deport, and no additional money to do it. The funding problem is the fault of Congress - they couldn't pass a budget to fully fund enforcement.

The way to overturn DACA would require the courts to overturn it (which hasn't happened in six years), an act of congress (overriding a presidential veto), or a new president to vacate it. So far, it's looking like option #3.

Considering the number of executive orders President Trump signed in his first few weeks of office, as well as Congress not explicitly legislating away the ability to create a different far reaching executive order, I'm increasingly convinced overreaching executive orders will continue for the forseeable future.

Re:Which amendment ?

[bongey]

Education for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?... from left wing SNL when Obama enacted DACA.

Re:Which amendment ?

[bongey]

SNL correcting you https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .

Re:Which amendment ?

[bongey]

It is the same as speeding tickets? , it granted legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegals. Yep speeding tickets.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* Muslim ban *cough*

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

Sorry, I thought I was addressing your apparent position that the immigration law was ill-specified and Obama was just filling in the gaps the way Congress wanted him too. I was trying to point out that a) immigration law hasn't really been changed much since the 90's and b) it wasn't just "No illegal immigration" and give the executive the job of implementing it--immigration law such as what I presented was quite detailed in the expectations Congress had for the executive.

"Considering the number of executive orders President Trump signed in his first few weeks of office, as well as Congress not explicitly legislating away the ability to create a different far reaching executive order, I'm increasingly convinced overreaching executive orders will continue for the forseeable future."

And true enough, but somehow to me one President striking a previous President's executive order doesn't rise to the level of "overreaching". That is, this specific case is not executive overreach.

I ignored your talk of how much it costs to deport someone as a "yeah but" moving goalpost. It costs a lot of money to try someone for assault and put them in jail, too, but I don't think we should stop doing that. The list of reasons why Trump action may be stupid is probably pretty long (same can be said of Obama's original orders), but the simple legality of it should hardly be a question: again, what one President did with the stroke of a pen, another can undo just as easily.

Re:Which amendment ?

[nine-times]

Ok, "it probably would have survived in court" is probably too strong. However, it may well have survived in court, at least in some form. DACA was put into place in 2012. Why do you think the people who oppose it are just now threatening to challenge it in court? They know the Trump Justice Department won't mount a defense.

But anyway, that's a relatively minor point in my post. On the theoretical side of the debate, the President can do a fair amount in terms of deciding how to enforce laws. On the practical side of the debate, this change isn't about constitutional law, it's about satisfying the portion of the population that doesn't like immigrants, especially when they're not white.

Re: Which amendment ?

[tbannist]

And yet, when Trump gives a press conference calling for people to calm down and calling out the violence on both sides, he gets such vehement outrage that CEO leave advisory boards, because, well obviously those marching to retain a statue are all bad. Because, NAZI.

The people marching "to retain a statue" were chanting "we won't be replaced by jews". So I'm thinking that the march wasn't really about the statue...

Re:Which amendment ?

[sl3xd]

And true enough, but somehow to me one President striking a previous President's executive order doesn't rise to the level of "overreaching". That is, this specific case is not executive overreach.

No real concern there. I'm just pointing out that by vacating the previous President's order (rather than legislating or. Using the courts), it's a tacit way of assuring the same can happen in the future.

I ignored your talk of how much it costs to deport someone as a "yeah but" moving goalpost. It costs a lot of money to try someone for assault and put them in jail, too, but I don't think we should stop doing that.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done because it's expensive. I am saying that it's hypocritical for Congress to demand better enforcement while providing no new resources. It's as if a city council who demands that an unfunded law enforcement should improve "because we said so."

Much like criminal law enforcement, if you have a surge in crime, you're going to need a surge in law enforcement funding. I'm OK with that, but apparently Congress isn't.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Article I Section 1.

Go to this video since apparently your generation failed to learn basic civics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag

Re:Which amendment ?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The part where he kept using Executive Orders to break Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Article 1 Section 1, idiot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag Here's how to enact a law. Go and do it.

Re: Which amendment ?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which was also denied by Article I Sections 1 and 8 and the 14th Amendment.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Cinnamon Beige]

cayenne8 stated that President Obama did not have the authority under the US Constitution to enact DACA unilaterally. He says that in order to enact DACA, an act of Congress is required.

And, frankly, if it's really got the support people are acting like it does, then there should be no particular issue with getting that act of Congress--especially since that would also provide distinctly more security for those who might use the program.

This is a lot of whining, really, over being asked "Hey, can we do this properly?" It makes as much sense as complaining about somebody saying you should replace the brittle crock in your code with...something that at least can pass as proper code & be maintained.

Re:Which amendment ?

[david_thornley]

Indeed, Obama is seeing all his legacy being unwound simply because he spent so much effort bypassing Congress that he built his house on sand.

For most of his time as President, Obama had a Congress that was deliberately obstructionist He did what he could.

Re:Which amendment ?

[shutdown -p now]

Article 2, Section 3:

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

The standing laws, as enacted by Congress, make illegal immigration a deportable offense. The way DACA is implemented, it's by the executive branch effectively refusing to enforce those laws with respect to a specific group of people.

Re:Which amendment ?

[mpercy]

The DREAM Act was first introduced in Congress in 2009, again in 2010, again in 2011, again in 2012. It was defeated each time. Similar bills (or sections of other bills) were introduced in 2001, 2007, and 2008. Defeated each time.

In 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress. It's how they passed Obamacare and the stimulus.

To say "he did what he could" means he went out and created policy that is in conflict with duly authorized (and signed by Pres. Clinton) immigration law AND ignores *multiple* votes in Congress that said "no we're not going to do that", including two such votes while his own party controlled Congress and the Presidency.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DREAM Act was first introduced in Congress in

You mean 2001. And nope, it has passed several times. The impediment was the filibuster, not a majority in Congress.

You know, an entirely non-Constitutional restriction by the Senate, on itself, not actual binding law.

ignores *multiple* votes in Congress that said "no we're not going to do that", including two such votes while his own party controlled Congress and the Presidency.

I notice you saying this sort of thing a lot, but Congress *NEVER* voted "not to do that" at any time. You're confusing a failure to pass a law with necessitating the opposite. That is an error of logic, and a falsehood on your part. I suggest you desist.

Now certainly Congress could vote to forbid such action. They could even vote to impeach the President.

They made no such vote. Never. Not once. They let Obama do it, and their only action? A token gesture that meant nothing since the USCIS was established by them, as a self-funding entity, which meant they never appropriated funding for it anyway. Now the states that filed a lawsuit are another matter, but WAIT, several states have sued over the rescinding.

Net result? LITIGATION. Yay?

Sorry, but either way, Congress has dropped the ball, and no, the Trump administration did not improve the situation. They just punted it. And tried to get idiots like you to think it was a Hail Mary touchdown.

Re:Which amendment ?

[Karmashock]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If you're curious.

Hands tied?

[brianerst]

Unfortunately, even the people who drafted DACA admit that Trump's in a bind here because the order is unconstitutional.

10 state sttorneys general gave Trump a September 5 deadline for ending DACA or they would sue to get it overturned. This same group had DAPA (the parental version) thrown out due to unconstitutionality and the argument against DACA is essentially identical. They would win in court, barring a reversal by the Supreme Court. The SC split 4-4 on DAPA, so the Appeals Court 2-1 against is the law of the land and no one expects that Gorsuch would find DACA constitutional.

Any dispassionate look at DACA sees that it's plainly unconstitutional. Unlike orders that deferred or gave a low priority to enforcement of immigration laws, DACA actually grants (temporary) legal status with no legal basis. Any attempt to find otherwise is really ends-oriented. Plenty of that sort of thing on both sides - but this would be really bad precedent.

The truly sad thing is that the "Dreamers" have supporters on both sides of the aisle - Republicans are pretty sympathetic to their plight as well. But, like anything, politics gets in the way - Democrats want a "clean" Dreamer bill while Republicans want something in return (either wall funding or mandatory e-Verify). Neither side is budging much at the moment (there are a few bipartisan bills out there, but each of the main conferences are waiting).

I don't tend to expect much from Trump (other than crazy uncle-style Tweeting at all hours) but even he seems to want to do something for the Dreamers. Hopefully, a deal can get done soon.

Re:Hands tied?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I don't tend to expect much from Trump (other than crazy uncle-style Tweeting at all hours) but even he seems to want to do something for the Dreamers. Hopefully, a deal can get done soon.

I don't know how you can seriously believe that. This is just red meat for his supporters, just like talk about The Wall is. One of the things about Trump is that he's actually pretty smart and I think everything he does is according to a plan, it's just not always a good plan and it doesn't always work. He knows full well that Congress will never, ever, pass a law on this for the reasons stated by others here - Republicans who do so will lose in the primaries and Democrats will have to give up something they'll never agree to (ie. funds for the wall) to get it done.

Re:Hands tied?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you clearly advocate rewarding people for breaking the law. I'm sure it's good for energizing the progressives and buying a few thousand votes, but the silent majority is tired of paying for it.

Re:Hands tied?

[penandpaper]

I would say giving the slow rollback is indeed a show of good faith to the Dreamers and supports of DACA. It wasn't Trumps fault that DACA was rolled out by Obama who overstepped his authority doing so. It wasn't Trumps fault that DAPA (the parental version) was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. From what I understand, a number of attorney generals threatened suit on DACA to get it rolled back and considering the precedent set by DAPA they would have won that suit.

If Congress had passed a law this wouldn't have happened. Trump saying that congress can save DACA I think is a show of good faith because it says he won't veto it. If Congress doesn't save DACA that isn't Trumps fault it's Obama's for overstepping executive authority and the previous Congress inaction. There seems to be support on both sides of the aisle for DACA.

As for the Wall, at some point Mexico needs to solve their problems and the US allowing an open border for anyone willing an able to solve those problems hurt Mexico and the people still living there. Why would the Mexican government try and solve any problems the poor are facing when the rabble rousers leave?

Re:Hands tied?

[orgelspieler]

The "silent majority" is neither. Never has been.

Re:Hands tied?

[toadlife]

either wall funding or mandatory e-Verify

The last thing Republicans want is e-verify. Republican's secretly love our broken system. It makes their labor easier to exploit and keeps down wages. Mandatory e-verify would destroy the agricultural industry as is it.

Not that that would be a bad thing.

The local farmers where I am were all in for Trump, putting giant billboard-sized Trump signs in all of their fields. Now they are crying fowl because of labor shortages.

Re:Hands tied?

[Train0987]

Entering the country without the permission of an immigration officer is a criminal offense. Not civil.

Re:Hands tied?

[HornWumpus]

Neither party wants to stop illegals.

Which is one of the things that got _Trump_ elected.

Re:Hands tied?

[thegarbz]

This same group had DAPA (the parental version) thrown out due to unconstitutionality and the argument against DACA is essentially identical. They would win in court

The 5th circuit disagrees

Re:Hands tied?

[HornWumpus]

I'm going to throw tantrums, until Vermin is made president.

Re:Hands tied?

[edtice1559]

These are *children* who were brought here at ages where they didn't have the ability to understand a concept like immigration law. Maybe the parents committed a crime, but it's pretty hard to say that the children did.

Re:Hands tied?

[TheSync]

These are *children* who were brought here at ages where they didn't have the ability to understand a concept like immigration law.

Even most adult American citizens don't even understand US immigration law.

How often do you see something stupid like "Why can't those illegal Mexicans just register themselves legally?" ignorant of the fact that there is no way for a Mexican without direct family to legally immigrate to the US, and even when you have direct family, the wait time can be 20 years as it is now for Mexican F1 visas (Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens).

Re:Hands tied?

[david_thornley]

We're talking about people who were brought here as young children. They didn't violate the law. They didn't necessarily even know they wee here illegally. They're also more than paying their own way. Removing them would be a blow to the economy.

DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[SensitiveMale]

Obama simply said "We're not going to prosecute these people." That's a huge Constitutional overreach.
If Obama & the Democrats wanted to make this permanent, they would have made it a law. But Obama & Democrats didn't care enough to make it a law. Obama wanted the political win without having to expend political capital & the Democrats in Congress didn't want a public vote.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[Gavrielkay]

I'm no fan of DACA but the Republicans brought it on themselves by fighting every single thing Obama did regardless of whether they personally agreed with it or not. He had no way to get this through the Republican Congress; they would never give him the win. So his choices were do something that would at the very least spur the conversation or do nothing. My own personal feeling is that we have to quit rewarding illegal immigration by passing amnesty bills every so often. These people sneak across the border, live in fear and hope and then *blam* at some point are legalized in bulk. The whole process is stupid. Either change the law or enforce it. So long as they know it's likely to one day get amnesty they keep coming and we keep pushing the ball down the field.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[SensitiveMale]

I'm no fan of DACA but the Republicans brought it on themselves by fighting every single thing Obama did regardless of whether they personally agreed with it or not. .

I understand your point, but that's not really what happened. Don't forget that Obama and the Democrats could have passes a law outlawing Republicans if they wanted to do so. Obama and the Democrats in Congress had two years to pass anything they wanted to pass. They could have passed any immigration laws they wanted.

Ironically, and this is easily verified, the Dems could have gotten almost everything they wanted in Immigration Reform with President Bush. Bush wanted to reform Immigration. Know who stood in his way? Pelosi. As referenced by your first sentence, Pelosi stated publicly, in print no less, in a Time magazine article that she instructed every Democrat in the House to oppose everything President Bush supports. http://i63.tinypic.com/augxn9.png The Democrats didn't want to solve the issue. They would rather have the issue as a political club.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[qbast]

Just because he knew does not mean he cared.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[PoopJuggler]

Really, how was Obama supposed to make this a law when the Republicans conspired to contravene every Democrat bill?

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[MightyMartian]

Considering the inability of Republicans dominating two branches of government to get much done, I'm not sure it's fair to zero in just on Democrats.

The problem boils down to intense partisanship, and both parties' bases being so sold on the notion of some sort of all out political war between the two parties that they cannot tolerate the notion of reaching across the aisle. If there's one up side to the Trump Presidency, it's that it is so unbelievable awful and incompetent that it looks like Congress will have little choice, at least on some files (and DACA looks to be one of them) where bipartisan work will have to be done.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[SensitiveMale]

The problem boils down to intense partisanship, and both parties' bases being so sold on the notion of some sort of all out political war between the two parties that they cannot tolerate the notion of reaching across the aisle

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[Train0987]

Illegal immigration isn't a partisan issue though. Support for ending illegal immigration polls around 80% nationally. That's why Trump got elected.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[MightyMartian]

No, that's not how it supposed to work. Some degree of partisanship is inevitable, but this political civil war is the exact opposite of how the Founding Fathers intended Congress to work.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[T.E.D.]

Obama simply said "We're not going to prosecute these people." That's a huge Constitutional overreach.

No it's not. It's called prosecutorial discretion.

No, no, no silly. Prosecutorial discretion is only what its called when a Republican does it.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[Gavrielkay]

Like I said, I'm not fan of DACA. But I'm less a fan of pretending we're controlling immigration and then occasionally passing amnesty so that we continue to encourage illegal entry. I think anyone who entered illegally, whatever their age now or upon entry, has to leave OR we just give up and change the law and say if you make it to US soil you can stay. But of course, as @SensitiveMale says, neither side really wants to solve this as it makes a nice political football.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[edtice1559]

We don't pass amnesty bills. We don't even talk about amnesty bills.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[SensitiveMale]

You're 100% wrong. The Federal govt now isn't what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted limited Fed powers. Severely limited. They even specifically wrote that into the Constitution. They wanted the States to be different. They wanted people to vote with their feet. They wanted few Federal laws. They set things up specifically so only a very few laws would pass. They did not want sessions of Congress where reams and reams of laws would be passed and signed by the Pres.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[SensitiveMale]

Wait a second. You mean an opposing political party actually opposed the political party in power?

Well spin up the presses because that's news!!

That's how things are supposed to work. Just because one party wants to give American citizenship to 20 million non-citizens in exchange for votes doesn't mean that the other party has to go along.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[kenh]

DACA is a protection racket - it charges the lowest priority deportation candidates (youthful immigrants with no convictions) and charges them $400+ dollars for two years of protection from something that was never likely to happen.

On the upside, now the federal government has a self-funded database with the accurate address info for 800K illegal immigrants! Bravo Democrats, you pulled thiese "dreamers" out of the shadows, took note of their addresses, then waited for your temporary stopgap measure to end, making them the easiest immigrants to deport.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[TheSync]

The Federal govt now isn't what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted limited Fed powers. Severely limited.

Indeed. Do you know what power is not mentioned in the Constitution? Power over control of immigration. Naturalization is mentioned, but not immigration.

Re:DACA isn't a law or even an executive order

[david_thornley]

Supposed to work according to whom? The Founders were against political parties, and hence any sort of partisanship. My observation is that government worked better with less partisan rancor, like we had when I was a kid.

The 14th amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment is what courts have *already* ruled was violated by DAPA.

The argument is that DACA violates the same clause of the same amendment. There's a pretty good case for that.

Re:The 14th amendment

[amiga3D]

Even Obama said it was temporary. I think he knew then it was very weak legally.

Re:The 14th amendment

[e_pluribus_funk]

Looks like Democrats and people like Paul Ryan want to make that "temporary" measure permanent...

Re:The 14th amendment

[amiga3D]

It very nearly happened in the Bush administration. It's going to cost whatever Republicans that vote for it their job.

Re:The 14th amendment

[e_pluribus_funk]

Apparently the real people they answer to don't care if it costs some Republicans their seats, they'll just replace them with a Democrat. It's pretty clear at this point that Paul Ryan was always the "pretend opposition" for the Obama and the Democrats and has always working for the same people that Obama and the other Democrats are - and I don't mean the American people. The primary thing that differentiated Trump from his GOP primary opponents was his very, very vocal opposition to any sort of amnesty for existing illegals, strong enforcement to keep illegals out, and his advocacy for net reduction in the numbers of legal immigrants we were allowing in.

It's pretty telling that Nancy Pelosi came out and condemned Antifa before Paul Ryan did. It was interesting when Paul Ryan did it, almost as if he got a message to go ahead and condemn them from his handler.

Re:The 14th amendment

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I want to make it permanent. Here's how: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag

correct decision

[doctorvo]

Obama never had the authority to implement DACA in the first place. Whether you like DACA as a policy or not, DACA undermines the rule of law, and that has disastrous consequences in the long run.

Trump's decision is a reasonable compromise: he is giving Congress six months to do what it should have done in the first place, namely define, in law, immigration policy for childhood arrivals.

Seperation of powers

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress creates laws, the President is supposed to enforce them. DACA was the president saying, basically, that certain laws regarding immigration are going to be ignored. The President doesn't get to pick and choose which laws get enforced.

Re:Seperation of powers

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that a president is like a king in most European countries?

He is not allowed to create or write laws, and he must enforce them without choice, this means a president has no power at all. Why do people keep saying he is the most powerful man in the world then?

Re:Seperation of powers

[cayenne8]

He is not allowed to create or write laws, and he must enforce them without choice, this means a president has no power at all. Why do people keep saying he is the most powerful man in the world then?

Precisely!!

I"m guessing from your post, you're not a US citizen....but yes, the President is supposed to be a somewhat weak office within the triumvirate that is the US Federal government (executive, legislative, judicial).

The say he is the most powerful man in the word, in on respect, because his *is* commander in chief of all the US armed forces. This is to keep a civilian in charge of the military, and ensure that no one person keeps that power for too long.

But yes, when you wield what is pretty much the most powerful armed forces i the world, you are often thought of as the most powerful person in the world.

But in the US, the constitution was set up to ensure that ALL power was not in one place, to prevent a dictatorship, etc.

Those old guys in powered wigs in the 1700's actually were pretty bright, and its sad so many today in the youth seem to be set on breaking down the very things that mad the US a great nation to date.

As the saying goes..."Yeah, it sucks here, but it sucks a lot less than everywhere else in the world."

Re:Seperation of powers

[penandpaper]

Why do people keep saying he is the most powerful man in the world then?

Because he controls the military and has broad authority do so without the consent of congress.

Some people like to conflate that broad authority to other legal or government matters which is very wrong.

Re:Seperation of powers

[Galactic Dominator]

It's supposed to be a equal branch and that particular office is mostly the end all and be all for it. If you think it's unconstitutional, then it should be decided with the judicial branch as it was with the Trump travel ban. Otherwise by saying the same office which you say is acting outside the scope of the constitution by enacting DACA, is the same office ending it under the auspice.

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

The big hole is you are forgetting that Congress can pass a law granting the Executive branch power to do something.

To take this discussion away to a less hot-button-at-the-moment topic, the entire system for handling classified information, and most* of the punishments for breaking those rules, were created by the Executive branch. The Executive branch could do this because Congress looked at the issue in 1947, threw up their hands and said "Hey Executive branch! You do it".

*Espionage has an explicit law. The various forms of mishandling classified information do not explicitly have a law, since "mishandling" is defined by the Executive branch. An EO could say "you have to hold classified with a velvet glove on Tuesdays", and that could be the basis for mishandling. And the most common punishment is entirely meted out by the Executive branch - removal of your clearance, no trial required.

Re: Seperation of powers

[backslashdot]

The president is an executive, any executive has a right and responsibility to decide which enforcement should be prioritized and how to go about with that prioritization. There aren't enough resources to enforce every law, and so you need the executive (who is usually elected) to decide which ones should be prioritized. Otherwise you would have police chiefs that devote all the police to enforce speeding tickets while rape and murder go unsolved? Or do you put all your resources into solving murder cases while robberies and rape go unsolved? Or you can be like Sheriff Arpaio who didn't bother with serious violent crime but spent most of his resources trying to arrest illegal farm workers.

Re:Seperation of powers

[cayenne8]

Well, while I have not had time to verify your statements about Espionage...it is pretty clear from existing law that if you are in the US illegally and are caught, you are to be deported.

Nothing really vague about that.

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

Well, while I have not had time to verify your statements about Espionage...it is pretty clear from existing law that if you are in the US illegally and are caught, you are to be deported.
Nothing really vague about that.

Except for where that intersects with treaties, the requirement that the destination country agree to accept the deported person, refugees, and so on, and so on.

Thinking this was all a bumper sticker is why we have such a shitty Congress that gives all its power to the Executive branch.

Re:Seperation of powers

[cayenne8]

Except for where that intersects with treaties, the requirement that the destination country agree to accept the deported person, refugees, and so on, and so on.

We're talking primarily Mexico right now...

And when exactly did our treaties change with them on deporting back to them?

Hell, only a few decades ago, this wasn't even a question....hell, look for the funny references to it in Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke movie....it was just common knowledge even in the 70's.

So, did we change our treaties with these countries since then?

Re:Seperation of powers

[SharpFang]

The president would be powerless if the laws were precise. But the laws are written as a broad compromise between the parties, and as result leave extreme amounts of wiggle room.

Law says: it's not permissible for illegal immigrants to remain inside US.

President reacts: Let's give them all citizenship then! They won't be illegal immigrants then!

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

We're talking primarily Mexico right now...

*facepalm*

No, no we're not. We're talking about Mexico, all of Central America, and much of South America. And also Canada, India, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, and lots and lots of other countries.

Again, pretending this issue fits on a bumper sticker is why we are in this mess and why Congress has spent decades abdicating its power to the Executive branch.

And when exactly did our treaties change with them on deporting back to them?

The treaties didn't. You being unaware of the relevant treaties did. And treaties are only one small aspect of the foreign relations involved in deporting people.

For example, we are not allowed to leave someone "stateless". If we want to deport someone to Honduras, and Honduras says "Nuh uh! Not ours!", we are not allowed to deport them thanks to a lengthy list of treaties and agreements. Instead, we are required to give this person something functionally equivalent to a green card.

As another example, we are not allowed to deport someone to a country where they will be shot by death squads. We have to treat them as refugees. We frequently ignore this because people pretend it's only about Mexico, resulting in us shipping people off to die.

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

You're assuming consistency on the people arguing about this.

When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.

Now that the Trump administration does not want to continue DACA, they are arguing that they have absolutely no power over immigration.

That 180 degree flip-flop makes the issue pretty easily confused. Especially when it is the exact same people and supporters making both arguments.

In reality, the power of the US President is in getting other people to do what he wants. Most commonly called "the bully pulpit". The US President has (one of the) largest megaphones in politics and international relations, and frequently can use that to get Congress and other countries to do what he wants.

LBJ's large part in passing the Civil Rights Act was not because he was in Congress. It was because he could bully Congress into passing it.

Re:Seperation of powers

[cayenne8]

Fuck'em...its not our problem.

If their country sucks so badly....they should fix it there, rather than come here, get mad at our country's culture and protest, waving the flags of their country of origin at the damned rallies.

Its a tough world, but it really isn't our problem.

We have plenty of problems with our own true citizens we need to address and take care of first.

Re: Seperation of powers

[ganjadude]

There aren't enough resources to enforce every law

wouldnt this go to say that we have too many laws and some need to be struck down?

Re:Seperation of powers

[HornWumpus]

Settled by treaty. UN says that all nations _have_ to accept their citizens back when deported.

Re:Seperation of powers

[HornWumpus]

If he's a Honduran citizen Honduras can't say 'Nuh uh!' By UN treaty all nations have to accept their deported citizens back.

Re:Seperation of powers

[HornWumpus]

Damn. That's the dumbest thing I've seen posted on the internet in a long time.

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

If he's a Honduran citizen Honduras can't say 'Nuh uh!' By UN treaty all nations have to accept their deported citizens back.

And who gets the final say as to whether or not this person is a Honduran citizen? Honduras.

So they can indeed say "Nuh uh!". That's why I included "Not ours!"

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

Fuck'em...its not our problem.
If their country sucks so badly....they should fix it there, rather than come here, get mad at our country's culture and protest, waving the flags of their country of origin at the damned rallies.

And now we're finally at the real motivation. Despite all the high minded rhetoric about separation of powers and executive overreach, here's the reason.

I eagerly await your demand that no Irish flags be flown on St. Patrick's day. Somehow, I don't think it will be coming.

Re:Seperation of powers

[Darinbob]

The president can only enforce what the resources allow. The budget isn't big enough to enforce every possible law, no matter how serious or minor. There are only so many agents available. So every president from the start has had latitude to set priorities. For example, cannabis use, there are enough serious things to worry about than to waste time and money trying to prosecute cannabis use, especially since most states already handle this.

Usually it comes down to politics. What makes the administration look good versus bad. The war on drugs has been a disaster, but it is also highly political, so lots of money was spent trying to appear to be doing something. Over time this has soured in the public's mind and so enforcement is weakening. Similarly for illegal immigration, it's highly political but it is also a very open secret that these workers are vital to many segments the economy such as agriculture.

Re:Seperation of powers

[hey!]

It is pretty clear from existing law that if you are in the US illegally and are caught, you are to be deported.

Is it? There's a difference between empowering the executive branch from deporting someone and mandating that. Insofar as the executive branch is empowered to make exceptions, it can set up formal guidelines under which it exercises those powers.

Re:Seperation of powers

[mpercy]

Powers of the Executive are in fact quite limited per the Constitution.

Section 2

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Re:Seperation of powers

[mpercy]

Actually, the related DACA for Parents order was ruled to have been done in violation of required notice-and-consent laws. The Constitutionality was not addressed, just that Obama had not followed the technical rules. The larger Constitutional question was sidestepped for the moment. The DACA order iteself has not been litigated, but something like 19 states are signed up ready to go if Trump had not begun to dismantle it. They are all arguing, and argued in the DACA for Parents order case, that the work visas and expenditures are not authorized by Congress and thus unconstitutional. But that hasn't been decided yet.

Re:Seperation of powers

[HornWumpus]

Question of fact.

No, they don't just get to say 'not ours' and expect to make it stick.

As to realpolitik 'final say', who has nukes?

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

Nations also get to decide if someone is a citizen or not. If you don't want them, refuse to acknowledge their citizenship.

Re:Seperation of powers

[networkBoy]

Hmm..so, if someone commits burglary, and steals $10,000 or so dollars and gets away with it. And...over the next 20 years, they never do anything else wrong, gets a job, contributes to society and then they are caught, we should just let them go, because they have been good all this time?

Actually, yes. That's why there is a statute of limitations on *most* crimes. If you messed up long ago, but kept your nose clean since then, then you can breathe easy as you're off the hook after n years where n is (usually) < 10.

Now, there are other crimes (e.g. murder, illegal residency in country) that have no limit. The former because it's heinous, the latter because it is a perpetual crime. In fact you could say the statute of limitations on being an illegal alien is 0 because once you've established legal residency you're clear for your past status (yes, there are rare cases where you have to leave first, then come back in).

Re:Seperation of powers

[networkBoy]

The president would be powerless if the laws were precise.

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Of course once stuck-in it's going to be a bitch for congress to just up and leave... so, yeah, POTUS isn't and never will be "powerless".

Re:Seperation of powers

[HornWumpus]

No. Just factually wrong.

Re:Seperation of powers

[sl3xd]

Not everything needs a bilateral treaty. As the GP stated "the requirement that the destination country agree to accept the deported person" -- every nation can deny entry to anyone, and is actually done quite often. There are a lot of guys in Guantanamo who have been cleared of any crime, but have no country willing to accept them, including their country of birth.

The UN states that there are over 10 million people who are denied a nationality. There's literally nowhere to deport them to.

The US doesn't generally deport refugees who are likely to suffer death or torture in their home country, regardless of how they got here.

Literally, the list goes on seemingly forever. By US law, it's not as simple as "deporting them."

Even when it does deport somebody, the US has its own laws for how deportees are to be treated -- generally similar to a domestic criminal. Deportation isn't cheap: ICE spent 3.2 billion dollars in 2016, with an average cost of over $10,000 per person deported.

So not only is it not as simple as "deporting them", it's also quite expensive.

Re:Seperation of powers

[Koby77]

When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.

This is false. The law is already on the books, and has been for decades. 8 U.S. Code section 1182 (f). It reads:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Re:Seperation of powers

[sl3xd]

Fuck'em...its not our problem.

Actually it is our problem: We have obligations to our own deportation laws. We've signed treaties which add obligations. There are obligations under international law that have to be met.

As of 2016, there's a cost of ~$10,000 per person deported, which is another taxpayer obligation.

We don't get to walk away from any of those obligations. They are our problems.

Re: Seperation of powers

[psycho12345]

No because you can have very simple short listing of laws and STILL not have enough resources to prosecute them all. Even if we just had laws against robbery, murder, blackmail and embezzlement, we don't have enough resources to prosecute every instance of those.

Furthermore, defense lawyers will routinely take some action that most people THINKS falls under the above four, and convince a jury or judge that the action doesn't, even if it is the same result. So you need to either let that action go unpunished, or modify the law to cover that scenario.

Re: Seperation of powers

[bongey]

Granting legal status to thousands of illegal immigrants is NOT executive discretion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Seperation of powers

[houghi]

What I feel is sad is that you believe that nothing changed since the 1700's. Just because extremely smart people did something does not mean it can not be improved.
It was just a great idea, not a bible. Holding on to it as if it where is not very smart.

However the most important thing that needs to be done is accountability. Talking about actual accountability that is being enforced, not just talked about.

And those smart people in the 1700's also told that having parties was a bad idea.

Re: Seperation of powers

[ai4px]

Wish I had mod points. Yes, this exactly..... remove some laws. From Atlas Shrugged...

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with

Re:Seperation of powers

[jeff4747]

"Here's his birth certificate"

"We have no record matching this certificate. It is obviously a forgery. He is not a citizen". Or "That matches this death certificate (that we just printed up). Therefore, it isn't this person and they are not a citizen"

Now what?

Re:Seperation of powers

[cayenne8]

Hey, I don't mind any of them waving a flag during a celebration....especially if they are citizens.

But no, I do get pissed when I see non-citizens, illegally in MY country, waving the flag of a foreign country, protesting MY country.

You'd think they'd see it as a bit counter productive.

Congress has had five years ...

[thrillseeker]

... since this was enacted by Administrative decree, and they sat on their ass about it the whole time. And now they want to "do something" to prove their relevance? Yeah ... no.

Re:I'm torn

[Gavrielkay]

They keep making the change "going forward." The parents know there's a good chance America will feel guilty about tossing out people who are illegally established here whether they arrived as children or adults. I think it's time we either change the law and say if you manage to sneak in you can stay, or enforce the existing laws and deport anyone who didn't arrive legally. These folks coming in and living under a legal cloud only to be occasionally legalized in bulk is nuts.

Re:A New Opportunity

[PPH]

opportunity to replace these illegal aliens with legal

... H1-B workers.

I get it now

[burtosis]

Since he cant get funding for the wall, Mexico has made it clear where Trump can pull funds from in no uncertain terms, and congress is having its typical debt ceiling crisis with probably the most expensive hurricane bailout thrown on top at the last instant - Trump has used his business genius to solve the wall problem. Simply fashion it from nationally orphaned souls, and cement it together with the lost hopes and dreams of a generation. I keep praying he doesn't alter the deal any further, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Six months? Not even in sixty years!

[Gravis Zero]

The current congress is as unified on immigration as they are on health care. It's over for DACA because even if congress could somehow pass a bill, it would never survive a presidential veto.

Rule of Law.

[galabar]

We are seeing a return to the rule of law. Whatever else President Trump has done, he seems to have been pretty consistent in this area.

Re:Rule of Law.

[shilly]

Apart from the Emoluments clause, of course. And various others. But laws are for little people, natch.

unconstitutional - so...

[bugs2squash]

DACA was signed in Juner 2012, Congress has had over 5 years to pass a law since then but they chose to bellyache over it. If it's sych a great constitutional crisis they would have acted.

Re:Nope

[HornWumpus]

Substitute 'liberal' for 'conservative' and 'brain' for 'heart'. Statement become more true.

Re:Canada will thank Trump

[HornWumpus]

Canada already has control of their borders, like America wants.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[Train0987]

I know several Democrats who voted for him in response to the corruption of the Democrat's nominating process. Don't look now but Hillary is going to run again and burn what's left of that party to the ground.

Oh, the irony!

[hyades1]

Facebook's failure to deal with the flood of far right fake news stories it spread during the campaign certainly contributed to Trump's election. Whether it was decisive or not is another question, but the only thing open for debate is how much fake news came from the Kremlin's propagandists and how much came from home-grown alt-right spinmeisters.

Now Zuckerberg is upset?

Sorry, kid. You made your bed. Now you have to lie in it.

Re:Oh, the irony!

[hyades1]

"Facebook higher-ups, Gizmodo reports, 'were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories,' but the update was scrapped when it was discovered that it would have 'disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people's feeds"

There are many, many reliable sources for this, so don't bother pulling the usual, sneering, "Oh, THAT site" nonsense.

And I bet you've forgotten Peter Thiel is on Facebook's board, and has huge influence there.

Re:Six months? Not even in sixty years!

[penandpaper]

From Trumps statements it sounds like he wouldn't veto it.

Could be lie but speculating as much is rather pointless. A lot of things could happen.

Oh boy, where to start

[rsilvergun]

Grandparents point is valid and you're missing it. There's a powerful global apparatus for getting shit done, and it only seem to move when it benefits big business. Clean food and water aren't a local problem for people born in places that can't sustain the population. Which to be honest is most people. You benefit from them having these things though. You benefit from global stability. It's a lot cheaper to drop food than bombs.

The left whines about imperialism because 99% of the time that's the only thing that moves the US. We prefer dropping bombs to food. Trump's biggest bump in numbers was when he dropped a $20 million dollar bomb on about 500 angry Afghani goat herders with Soviet Era weapons.

We already know the things required to solve these problems. Food, education & birth control. Warmongers don't want to give out food and our religious nuts don't care much for education & birth control. Sure, it's only 20% of our populace, but they _vote_.

Re:Oh boy, where to start

[Dread_ed]

Stopping population growth is easy. It just takes two things:

1) Allow women to control their own reproductive rights.
2) Provide university level education to women.

These two things result in a drastic decrease in the birth rate.

There may come a day when religious institutions that teach and enforce subjugation of women and uncontrolled copulation are considered criminals against humanity and the earth.

Re:Oh boy, where to start

[sexconker]

It's a lot cheaper to drop food than bombs.

Only because we vastly overpay for our over-designed bombs. Even then, bombs are cheaper in the long run. People tend to want food and water multiple times a day. How many bombs do you need to have dropped on you before you no longer need to have bombs dropped on you?

Sure, sustainable and stable infrastructure, governments, agriculture, etc. would be great. But plenty of warlords over there disagree. You're not gonna hug those regions into peace.

Re:Oh boy, where to start

[blindseer]

Warmongers don't want to give out food and our religious nuts don't care much for education & birth control.

I'll give you the part on the warmongers but the "religious nuts" part is off base.

It seems you know little of history. The entire concept of a university comes from the christian tradition of schools for the clergy, where they'd be taught not just theology but also such things philosophy, history, and the sciences. Much of what we know today comes from research done in schools started by christian churches. What came before Christianity was preserved through time by libraries maintained by these christian organizations. You can say that Jesus is a myth and the Bible a book full of fairy tales but the christian traditions is what created modern society. Those traditions include separation of church and state, religious tolerance, equality under the law, and so much we value in a free society. These things also include some pretty basic stuff like don't lie, steal, cheat, rape, or murder.

There are other religions that don't have rules against lying, cheating, stealing, raping, or murdering. Lumping them in with the Christian "religious nuts" is quite the leap of logic. Sure, Christianity may have some strange rules and customs but for the most part it's about treating others and you'd want to be treated, and take care of those in need.

You may think that Christianity has some strange rules on birth control too but I'm quite certain that keeping your pants on is 100% effective against having children. It's also a plenty more sane and compassionate than what some religious and secular customs have on controlling birth rates.

jay's lawn care is going to have to pay min wage a

[Joe_Dragon]

jay's lawn care is going to have to pay min wage and workers comp now they will not have the illegals to pay under the table with the ER as there workers comp

illegals at the ER drive costs up

[Joe_Dragon]

illegals at the ER drive costs up

Excess youth in the USA?

[reisubipt]

I dont understand, has the USA an excess of young people? Is that it? What exactly the age profile of those that will be affected by this?

Dumb move by Cook to admit it

[Solandri]

Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change.

So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment.

The DACA wasn't a law. It was just the Obama administration saying they wouldn't prosecute for violations of the actual law which mandates fines for hiring non-citizens without Federal work permits. The law is still there, and Cook has now admitted in public that his company is knowingly in violation of it. If he'd kept his mouth shut and only expressed an opinion, he could've feigned ignorance and kept the affected workers in Apple's payroll. But because he tried to publicly use their plight as leverage, he's now put himself into a position where Apple has to fire them or face fines and imprisonment.

Re:Dumb move by Cook to admit it

[Cederic]

That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment.

I'll giggle if Tim Cook and his HR chief get imprisoned. Sadly unlikely.

Re:Dumb move by Cook to admit it

[TheSync]

So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment [legalmatch.com].

Immigration law is very complex. Under immigration law, employers have a responsibility to make sure that they do not employ unauthorized workers. Whether they are a "lawful permanent resident" doesn't matter, only their authorization to work.

DACA recipients get an employment authorization document (also known EAD, work permit, or I 766) that tells the employer that they are authorized to work in the U.S.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[jeff4747]

Don't look now but Hillary is going to run again and burn what's left of that party to the ground.

Not likely. The campaign was showing some pretty obvious physical effects on her. After another 4 years, I don't think she could physically do it.

OTOH, Team Clinton has been sending out indications of who the anointed successor is. At the moment, it's Kamala Harris. But we'll have to see if she can last longer than Corey Booker and Deval Patrick.

Re: Thank You, Mr. President!

[Anonymous Coward]

...when you can't come within a mile of the wall before being detected, monitored and possibly intercepted...

Then why build the wall at all?

Re: Thank You, Mr. President!

[Train0987]

I'm afraid you're the one who is lost. It is up to the people of Mexico to fix Mexico. Or do you suggest we try nation-building again?

OT: History of law-making in the US

[mi]

This is what you get when you live by the Executive Decision

You are right. But it is even worse than that, actually. Because of vagueness of the Constitution, certain wide-ranging and life-altering laws have passed without proper consent of the governed.

And I'm not just talking about Obamacare... Things like military draft, "civil rights", drug prohibitions, "war on poverty", "assault weapons" ban should all have been done (or not done) as Constitutional Amendments — not mere federal laws.

Alcohol-prohibition may have been a bad idea, but we all decided to attempt it — and then reversed the decision. There is no reason, ban on marijuana and other drugs shouldn't have been implemented (or not) through the same mechanism.

The minute details of enforcement/implementation could've been left to Congress, but the general intent — like do we want mandatory conscription at all, or should we limit the breadth of the Second Amendment — should've been decided by the entire nation.

As things stand, Congress supplants the nation the same way President supplants Congress... The decision-making needs to be pushed back a notch.

Re: OT: History of law-making in the US

[mi]

It simply did not consider the masses of the people in a direct fashion.

It does not have to be a referendum — I am, indeed, quite happy to live in a Republic, rather than a Democracy — but a good majority of States have to accept the change.

Civil Rights is a Constitutional Amendment.

No, it was not.

Over a dozen of them at that.

Could you cite the 12+ Amendment-numbers, please?

There was no pubic vote, referendum, or plebiscite on the 18th Amendment,

The Amendment was ratified in accordance with the Constitution.

You'll need to change the Constitution then.

There was no "revolution" in between adopting the ban on alcohol and the ban narcotics. It was a gradual change — I'd be satisfied with just as gradual a change in the opposite direction.

Re: OT: History of law-making in the US

[dywolf]

no it was not

Get the fuck out.

The CRA of 1964 only expounds on a specific interpretation and logical extension of the civil rights enumerated in the constitution. For reference, since you seem to need it, that's 1-10, 13, 14, 15, and a couple others.

It also was merely one of several civil rights acts passed to expound upon and explain our civil rights.

Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[jasontromm]

So basically everybody is getting upset with Doland Trump for ending DACA, but that's not what he's doing. He's saying, "Congress, DO YOUR JOB!" Obama's executive action was unconstitutional. 'Repealing" DACA is completely legal.

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[hyades1]

Thank you for your opinion, Your Honour.

Perhaps Your Honour would please explain the mystery of why a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a right-leaning judicial system with a glut of far-right state and federal prosecutors all failed to challenge President Obama's "unconstitutional" action using the myriad tools they had at their disposal to do so.

Will you cite case law to support your opinion, or should we accept, "Because I say so" as sufficient proof of your expertise?

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[Train0987]

Several states' threatened to do just that and they set a deadline. Sept 5.

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[RhettLivingston]

We'll see how that works for him.

DACA was implemented because Congress wouldn't do their job.

Obama deported more immigrants than any other President in history and more than all of the Presidents of the 20th century combined. He was able to do so BECAUSE he prioritized who they went after - violent felons.

Given the limited dollars allocated by Congress to do the job, getting your numbers up requires going after the easy cases. Women and children are not generally the easy cases.

DACA saved money that was then used to implement the most effective deportation program ever by helping to concentrate the resources where they were most needed.

I predict that Trump will be less effective than Obama at deporting violent illegal immigrants. He'll eventually shift budgets that would have been spent on deportations to building a wall that will have no effect on stemming the tide. He'll use unrealistic numbers for how much the wall will reduce illegal immigration and Congress will turn those numbers on him by saying that in that case, you don't need all of this money to deport people who can't get in. They'll then scavenge enforcement to give more money to their construction buddies. Unless we have an economic disaster or our racial warfare increases to the point of making America too dangerous of a place to bring your family, the net result will be a gain in illegal immigrants during the Trump administration.

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[TheSync]

Obama deported more immigrants than any other President in history and more than all of the Presidents of the 20th century combined.

This should not be forgotten. I know someone who was deported while walking his kids to school!

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[hyades1]

Threats are cheap, especially when you set a deadline months after the author of the situation has left the scene.

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[hyades1]

If they'd tried to take on President Obama in his own area of expertise, he'd have eaten them alive...and they know it.

Re:Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[jasontromm]

Don't listen to me. Listen to this Georgetown Law Professor:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...

Remember, Law Professors from Georgetown are not known for being conservatives.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[HornWumpus]

No love for Hillary. But Bernie _wasn't_ a D until he saw an opportunity once all the viable candidates stepped aside to give Hillary 'her turn'.

He wouldn't have come second if those others hadn't 'bowed out'.

Re:Six months? Not even in sixty years!

[Train0987]

Trump is forcing them to craft a bill and vote on it just in time for their primaries before the 2018 elections. Ending illegal immigration polls at over 70% in favor. Hate him all you'd like but it's a brilliant strategy.

Re:I'm torn

[Baron_Yam]

> I think it's time we either change the law and say if you manage to sneak in you can stay, or enforce the existing laws and deport anyone who didn't arrive legally.

The first reason for the waffling, in my opinion, is that the immigration is economically net positive (they generally start with jobs locals won't take at rates other locals will pay). The second is that once they're established, they're part of the community and ripping them out is bad PR and potentially vote-losing.

Rather than opening the borders or massive round-ups, I think an honest review of the benefits of immigration and then ultimately opening the gates enough to let in similar numbers to those who have been historically sneaking in would be best. And probably political suicide.

civics

[harvey the nerd]

...and my Civics teacher was a communist trying to not-so-covertly indoctrinate us.

Question of visibility

[SuperKendall]

Funny how government control is bad when it's federal but it's just fine when the state does it.

No, it's potentially very bad either way.

However at a federal level there is almost ZERO visibility into how power is being exerted, because the control is so far physically removed from the people.

It's quite a different matter when power is mostly concentrated at a state level, where anyone can literally WALK to to to people in control and give them "feedback", or oust them as needed.d

It's a question of how far removed from accountability and visibility power is.

Action was deferred... DACA was not permanent

[MattskEE]

Executive orders are by nature fleeting as they are not law. A new President can undo orders much faster than Congress can reverse laws. DACA was a stop-gap measure to "defer action", and give time for Congress to make it permanent by putting its ideas into law. The Republican Congress had no interest in doing so (unfortunate in my opinion), so it's hardly surpising that DACA is now being reversed.

Plus DACA was on legally shaky ground from the beginning. Even if we agree with a President their power should still be limited because we might not agree with the next President.

Re:"undocumented immigrants"

[rock_climbing_guy]

You mean that you want to perform an unauthorized termination of their cardiopulmonary functioning?

Video of Obama admitting DACA is unconstitutional

[richrz]

How this can be used politically against Trump is astounding and an example of the blatant idiological motivation of the press, dems, and republicans. This is how Truth dies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[e3m4n]

dont limit that statement to just Trump. Thats been the damn drum beat for 30 yrs now. Remember that fake-ass war on women bullshit? Or revisionist history that certain parties are responsible for things like the KKK? Seriously? Its part of the global game to tell one group that the other group represents everything wrong in the world and that their group is righteous and without flaw. Both sides get so angry at the aparent flaws the other side denies that all they do is scream hypocrisy and overlook their own issues. As long as they keep both sides fighting they can keep going along bleeding both sides dry of extra money. Forget about all the taxes they bilk out of you, forget that our defense budget is so extreme that it alone is the real reason why we cant have germany's healthcare (one that actually works), forget about the fact that even France can give their people college education for nearly nothing, we're bled dry and get none of that. And if thats not enough, they get you so angry with THE OTHER GUYS that you literally constantly make campaign contributions hoping to right a wrong. All the while they're just pocketing that extra cash. Not one thing has ever really been done.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[e3m4n]

because she doesn't give a shit about whats good for anyone, she cannot get over her sociopathic vanity. It's Captain Ahab once again determined to kill that humpback whale, to hell with her crew.

Re:Thank You, Mr. President!

[e3m4n]

Ding Ding Ding!, if all those people were forced to deal with their government, the corruption would plummet. They are voluntarily deporting their naysayers.

Re:"undocumented immigrants"

[rock_climbing_guy]

And oh yes, the weapons you use to perform the job won't be illegal, they will be "undocumented".

Re: Thank You, Mr. President!

[e3m4n]

jeesus, you sound like that really old joke about why Mexico doesnt have anyone in the olympics: Because anyone who can run, jump, or swim, is already in the USA.

One also wonders about the "children"

[bradley13]

Certainly in Europe, lots of "children" have arrived as refugees, without much in the way of identity papers. In more than a few cases, it turns out that they are in their 20's. In one egregious case, a guy was actually in his 30s. But generally there's no way to prove anything, no matter what people suspect. I don't know for certain what kinds of children the US is talking about, but seeing an age limit (on arrival) of 16, I expect it is similar to Europe. Children in their mid-teens, mostly male, many understating their age in order to be eligible.

Start with the law. Undocumented immigrants is weasel-wording for illegal immigrants. The US already went through one amnesty. The politicians at the time promised to close the borders, if the populace accepted granting the amnesty. Of course, they didn't, so the US now has roughly 10x as many illegal immigrants as there were at the time. Funny how granting amnesty to lawbreakers leads to more lawbreaking. So now the progressives want more amnesty.

Deport them. A nation that doesn't enforce its borders isn't really a nation.

Re:One also wonders about the "children"

[joh]

Nations are overrated. The idea of nations isn't very old and it's already dying.

Re: I'm torn

[backslashdot]

God is not big on that:

Quotes from the Bible:
Ezekiel 18:19-20
âoeYet you say, âWhy should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?â(TM) When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

There are plenty of other quotes too such as:
Deuteronomy 24:16
âoeFathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

Exodus 34:7
"Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.â

Of course it contradicts those in Isaiah (context uncertain, and may not not directly from God and may be speaking about a specific person's sons)!!

Isaiah 14:21
"Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their fathers, lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the face of the world with cities.â

That's the Bible for you, enough contradictions to justify any position!

Ignore big biz

[Tablizer]

Tech giants like Apple, Facebook and Google are no doubt going to blast the Trump administration's decision...

Why should the prez care what tech giants think? They don't vote; corporations are not people. Granted, it's good to listen to all constituents and affected parties to understand all perspectives, but elected officials should be paying most of their attention to those who elect them. We are a democracy (or should be), not a corporatocracy.

(I'm not agreeing with the prez's decision, only saying big biz shouldn't be the major reason to set policy.)

Re: A New Opportunity

[backslashdot]

And you would allow that?? Yeah right.

Who's next?

[dskoll]

We're running out of vulnerable people for Trump to attack. Pretty soon he's going to come after regular folk instead of undesirables.

Eric Columbus who worked under Obama on DACA...

[BrookHarty]

Eric Columbus who worked under Obama on DACA and how it effects POTUS Trump had a good overview on twitter.
He really explains how DACA and DAPA are illegal, and how DACA would fail under same court scrunity.

https://twitter.com/EricColumb...

THREAD: As a lawyer who worked for Obama on DACA issues, I’d like to explain what’s on Trump’s plate, how it got there, and what may happen.

2. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was created in 2012 to protect “Dreamers” – who came to US as kids but aren't here legally.
3. Essentially, DACA enables DHS to notify Dreamers formally – via a two-year permit – that they won’t be removed from the US.
4. Just as importantly, it renders them eligible to work legally and be eligible for certain benefits.
5. Candidate Trump promised to “immediately terminate” DACA. But he hasn’t, and in January he said DACA folks “shouldn’t be very worried.”
6. But on 6/29, ten state AGs wrote DOJ threatening to sue to kill DACA unless Trump agrees by 9/5 to phase it out.
7. Sad to say, I agree with the Trump administration that such a challenge to DACA is very likely to succeed.
8. The legal issues are *identical* to a suit that 26 states filed in 2014 to prevent us from implementing a new program called DAPA.
9. DAPA would have provided deferred action, and work authorization, to parents of US-born kids.
10. The 2014 suit also challenged an *expansion* of DACA announced at same time as DAPA. But it didn't challenge the original DACA program.
11. States won in district court and by a 2-1 vote on appeal. SCOTUS, after Scalia died, split 4-4, so the court of appeals decision stood.
12. We can presume the 4 who voted to invalidate were Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Kennedy. I'd bet a large sum that Gorsuch would join them.
13. It’s theoretically possible, of course, that someone – most likely Kennedy – could have a change of heart and save DACA.
14. Because SCOTUS doesn't bother writing opinions in tie votes, Kennedy’s slate is clean. He’s famously changed his mind in other cases.
15. But this is a slim reed on which to stake the hopes of the 780,000 people who benefit from DACA.
16. If the issues are identical, why didn’t the states try to kill DACA entirely in 2014? Probably because the Dreamers are too sympathetic.
17. They came here as kids, most brought by their parents. For many, the US is the only place they’ve ever considered home.
18. This may explain why, of the 26 states that sued in 2014, only 10 signed on to this letter.
19. Alas, the apparent opposition of 40 other states is legally irrelevant to whether DACA is valid exercise of federal executive authority.
20. What happens now? Oddly, the states’ threat isn’t consistent w/their request. They ask Trump to stop issuing DACA permits/renewals.
21. They’re *not* asking to rescind existing permits. So DACA folks would still be able to work legally until their 2-year permit expires.

Re:Eric Columbus who worked under Obama on DACA...

[shaitand]

So tell me, can these "kids" be 17yr olds or college students that Facebook/Microsoft/any other tech machine imports and then pays for school on, allowing them to work and subsequently apply for a VISA?

In other words, why are the tech cartels chiming in so quickly in response to this? This has to be a back door they are using to displace Americans workers under the imaginary "shortage" of skilled workers. Just like the real reason a Washington court blocked the travel ban was that it interfered with Tech companies ability to illicitly staff from a number of the affected nations. That isn't a conspiracy theory, it is the rationale the judge wrote in his ruling.

Why headlines aren't dictated

[T.E.D.]

If this headline were taken via dictation, it would read:

The Trump Administration Has Announced the End of DACA -- Unless Congress Can Act T...bwhahahaha! No wait! I can get through this...

Re:I'm torn

[Tough Love]

If you allow people to benefit from their crimes, you're condoning and providing an incentive for those crimes.

Oh, so you mean, like letting Trump continue to foul the chair of the POTUS?

For every complex problem

[Tenebrousedge]

It's great how you can reduce the problem to a black-and-white issue that you can understand, and pretend that's all there is to the argument. You still have not offered a reason why this is unconstitutional, and you're very carefully avoiding the concept of prosecutorial discretion, which has been a part of common law since before the Constitution was written.

And yes, there is also such thing as the statute of limitations. The point of a justice system is not punishment but rehabilitation. If someone lives quietly for decades after a crime as a happy and productive member of society, isn't that the end goal anyway? And there is of course no moral requirement to obey an immoral law. And god forbid someone might stop to examine what this all might cost to enforce, both in dollars and in expanded police powers.

Would you mind finding some better arguments?

Re:I'm torn

[Gavrielkay]

Sure, sounds great, so why doesn't the law read that way? Why doesn't the law make it easier for anyone who can be gainfully employed within X days of entry or is currently pursuing a college degree and passing, or entered the military etc... It's stupid for the law to say one thing and everyone's feeling and pity leads to a totally different outcome. These people should not have to sneak in, live in fear and oppression at the whims of executive orders and crap if we actually need them in our economy. And if we don't or can't make ourselves admit it, then enforce the laws strictly and people will quit coming in illegally hoping for that eventual amnesty. The law should encode what we actually want to happen and the we should enforce it strictly.

Let me illustrate the problem

[Kohath]

The guy that said Article 1 Section 1 was correct:

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.

To illustrate the problem, let me suggest something Trump could do:

Trump wants Congress to pass a business tax cut. But why bother with Congress? The President could simply direct the IRS to issue rules telling companies to pay their taxes as if the rate were 15% instead of 35+%. Along with your business taxes, include a letter asking for a binding settlement. The IRS settles with delinquent taxpayers all the time, often for much less than the amount owed. Trump could direct the IRS to automatically settle for 15%. Why shouldn't he do this?

Because the US Constitution is to be obeyed, not worked around.

The President takes an oath to "faithfully" execute the office. Creating workaround schemes to circumvent Congress is executing the office in bad faith.

Re:I'm torn

[Baron_Yam]

First, I'm Canadian, so no horse in the race. Second, our conservatives are more like your democrats and I lean a bit further left than that (though I dislike our historically fairly corrupt Liberal party).

Having said that... Trump ran a dirty campaign without any ethics at all, and then he was voted in according to the American system. The system has mechanisms for doing something about it quickly, but it isn't politically expedient. Other mechanisms are slower, but are rolling along and MAY eventually do something. Or may not. Or Trump could go scorched Earth on his way out and finish shitting on the system by granting immunity to everyone including himself and lock up the legal system so long he gets to die free and unpunished. Or finish up his term (or even get re-elected!) while polling historically low the whole time and declaring himself vindicated.

Maybe ya'll oughta look into two things: fixing whatever caused your society to vote him in (minority vote or not, he got a huge chunk of voters to back him), and upgrading the systems that let him get so far and are so slow to correct themselves.

Maybe try a parliamentary democracy out for a few years and break the back of that overly adversarial two-party system you have going. (As a Canadian, I'm probably biased on that one)

Thank you! Some common sense .....

[King_TJ]

I really have two issues with the legislation and am happy Trump is opting to repeal it.

First and foremost is exactly what you stated: Obama's creating this the way he did overstepped his boundaries and it needs to be rescinded, in favor of Congress coming up with an acceptable alternative.

Second, just how many of these "DREAM" folks made any real effort towards becoming legal citizens after being granted this loophole to stay here? (I really don't know the answer to that question -- but unless someone can show evidence otherwise, I'm betting not a whole lot of them did much. They just assumed/hoped they were "good" since Obama gave them that legislative relief.) They should have realized this was likely only a temporary measure and didn't preclude them trying to become U.S. citizens if they wanted to stay here permanently.

Sounds good to me

[shaitand]

I fail to see the problem here. The fact tech companies immediately chimed in upset suggests this was another illicit H1B backdoor stratagem.

Re:Canada will thank Trump

[HornWumpus]

They really should build their own economy, it sucks to be that dependant. Just the fact that 90% of canucks live within 100 miles for the border tells all.

Name another country

[reboot246]

Go ahead. Name another country that leaves its borders wide open and says come on in. Hell, try entering Mexico illegally and see how far you get. Demand that they do all of their government business in English and Spanish. Good luck.

I'm all for immigration as long as it's done legally and orderly. Letting in too many people and not allowing enough time for them to assimilate is asking for disaster.

Let's start at the requirements for that...

[xiux]

A big problem with distributing resources in areas most in need is that you have to protect it, or the resources will disappear because corrupt local governments and war lords will hoard it for their own gain.

We already know the things required to solve these problems. Food, education & birth control.

Education and birth control may be counter to local sentiment and culture, and may be violently opposed. Good or bad, imposing such a huge change could be considered imperialistic and may come across as "Us white people need to save those brown/black people from themselves," and still ultimately require force to implement.

One does not simply establish rule of law (or a new set of laws), but you'd pretty much have to if you want to make these changes and feed people. Given recent examples, such an endeavor is a multi-decade commitment, because leaving too early risks leaving a power vacuum, possibly compounding the problem. It takes at least a couple generations to learn the process of running a democratic society. And what do we do if they keep voting in the same corrupt government over and over? Overthrow it and restore "democracy" each time? As Turkey has shown, that's not viable in the long run.

I'm eager to learn of any viable plan to bring these countries into the modern era without force, in any reasonable timescale. I'm very conflicted on the choice to use force in this way, but I believe it's necessary to accomplish the stated goals within one lifetime.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[sfcat]

Ah Kamala Harris, you clearly didn't live in SF when she was DA here. She was a Willie Brown appointee who was so hated that she almost lost election when she had no opponent. She never gave a single shit about her constituents. She worked in SF government during a period of high corruption (they found ballot boxes floating in the bay multiple times after Brown's elections) and low progress. I fear how she would fair at the national level if she ever got any power. You think the Clintons were corporate hacks (I don't think that's really fair), Harris actually is.

Then Pass a Law you want...

[Tulsa_Time]

Otherwise you are just advocating lawbreaking.

I think this is the best possible solution. Give Congress 6 months to modify the law... otherwise enforce it.

If you are serious that you want and need DACA then get congress to MAKE IT LEGAL.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[Rakarra]

She's still going around complaining about Bernie because he's not a TRUE Democrat like she is.

He never was, you know. Bernie is a Socialist who found it convenient to join the Democratic Party for their support, just like Ron Paul is really a Libertarian, not a Republican.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[Rakarra]

Not likely. The campaign was showing some pretty obvious physical effects on her. After another 4 years, I don't think she could physically do it.

She was doing just ok, though there was a flood of fake news "hillary caught coughing up blood!" "Hillary on death's door" bullshit spread from overseas.

OTOH, Team Clinton has been sending out indications of who the anointed successor is. At the moment, it's Kamala Harris.

That's a laugh, Harris is way too new and doesn't have the learning or charisma of Obama to overcome that. She would get munched up, though I guess it's a long way until 2020. She is also from California, and in this day and age, only Republicans from California can gain national respect, not Democrats.

Reminder - Obama himself said it was temporary

[kenh]

President Obama called this a temporary, stopgap measure when he announced it. He stated it wasn't amnesty, wasn't a path to citizenship - unfortunately, he left out the fact it also wasn't Constitutional.

If you like your DACA

[Tulsa_Time]

You can keep your DACA

Temporary vs Law

[DrYak]

If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

Now the question comes :
how does this work in the US ?

Is it necessary to repeal an act before being able to pass a law ?

Or in simpler term is it mandatory to stop the temporary measure, before putting a permanent change of law ?

Congress hasn't been interested

[Manqueman]

In immigration reform for years now. So why would anyone expect them to do Donald's dirty work? There's a better plan in place for the Dreamers than anything Congress would ever do: The policy Donald shut down. But Donald never passes on an opportunity to punch down, like the infantile bully he is, as well as to pander to his base.

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[fuzznutz]

No love for Hillary. But Bernie _wasn't_ a D until he saw an opportunity once all the viable candidates stepped aside to give Hillary 'her turn'.

Bernie??? Not a Democrat??? The Socialist from Vermont???? He's the only honest Democrat around. I will never forget him ON NATIONAL TV saying, "We will raise taxes. Oh yes we will."

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[fuzznutz]

OTOH, Team Clinton has been sending out indications of who the anointed successor is. At the moment, it's Kamala Harris.

Paid for by the committee to re-elect Donald Trump. I guess they didn't learn anything from 2016.

DACA = deadbeats

[thunderclees]

In order to apply for DACA, immigrants had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012 and the average age of DACA beneficiaries is 25. These are not children but are income tax evaders.

Re:DACA = deadbeats

[gnasher719]

In order to apply for DACA, immigrants had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012 and the average age of DACA beneficiaries is 25. These are not children but are income tax evaders.

These people applied for DACA, which means they are known to the authorities, and have to pay income tax just like anyone else known to US authorities, that is just like US citizens, and foreigners who live and work in the USA legally. No income tax evaders.

Re:DACA = deadbeats

[thunderclees]

Actually, it is recommended on many of the DACA information sites that if you seek a path to citizenship then you should pay taxes. You can be "known to authorities" and still be a deadbeat illegal as many illegal aliens also have SSID and drivers licenses, etc. Since the average age of DACA-menteds is 25 it shows many of them do not want or care about a path to citizenship despite what the various action group tell the media. So yes, absolutely DACA = Deadbeats.

You Are Being Gamed

[JimSadler]

Trump is aware that ending the dreamers act will create a lot of rage, anger and resentment. He does not want that rage dumped upon him so he passed the hot potato to congress. It is an all republican house and senate so if they say no then the rage will fall upon the republican party. So they have a motive to pass a law enabling the dreamers to stay. But if they pass the hot potato back to Trump then he can claim that he can not over ride the will of congress and deport the dreamers. As usual Trump could care less about the 800,000 dreamers, their relatives, friends and spouses. All he seeks is not to take the political hit that such a rat bastard policy will surely cause, The man would ruin millions of lives just to stroke his sick ego.

Children, etc?

[ebvwfbw]

Children that the average age is 26. He didn't kill it entirely, he gave it 6 months and anyone on it right now that means they really have 2 years before they have to leave. So he's actually doing what Obama wanted to do in the first place. Obama said he did the EO because Congress wouldn't act. Ok, now that we have a real president, he's going to hold their feet to the fire. So we should all be saying what a great Pres he is.

Re:Canada will thank Trump

[HornWumpus]

Canada has a resource extraction economy, like Russia. It's completely dependant on the USA. The only parts that aren't empty, are right over the border.

POLITICAL PARTIES are unconstitutional!

[PlaynBass]

I agree, aepevirus, show me where in the US Constitution that the Executive Branch is disallowed prosecutorial discretion! Any more than the US Constitution gives the 2 major parties the right to exert Majority-Minority control over the arcane rules of the House and Senate.

Yes, each house of Congress can write it's own rules (and they supposedly agree to a new set of rules at the beginning of each newly-elected Congressional session) but where does it say that POLITICAL PARTIES have any say in what those rules should be?

In fact, it is only the long-time corruption of the self-written rules of each house that allows this perversion of the idea the each of the States should send representatives to speak for us at the Federal Government level. The roles of Majority and Minority leader, whips, etc, are all an invention of past corruptions of the US Constitution that have been extremely convenient for lazy politicians to feather their positions of corruption and power, and to give them political cover for avoiding their responsibilities for truly representing the interests of their direct constituencies in their own States.

This is what has allowed the perversion of the Electoral College system to allow a strong political party (which is an unconstitutional function of humanity's natural greed and corruption) to gerrymander the electoral districts as a means of securing a political PARTY's chokehold on power.

This is what comes from dumbing down the civic education of the US voter, as a result of the long-time pervasive neoconservative attack on public education in the States, which is essentially due to the desire of property owners to avoid paying property taxes on their rental properties, which, after all, is what pays for the poor's "free public education". This breakdown of the requirement of a democracy to have an educated and informed electorate is a key to how we have "evolved" politically into this swamp of corruption and graft at most, if not all, levels of government today.

An uneducated, uninformed electorate can not expect to control a democracy, and our politicians take full advantage of this fact. Property tax payers in the States are getting exactly the government that they've paid for!

Re:Everyone's Opinion

[HornWumpus]

He never ran as one, until he ran for president.

Sure many Ds are crypto commies. But they have been part of a specific corrupt organization (the D party) for years. Bernie wasn't.

Won't matter for long

[damn_registrars]

We've already seen a decrease in people wanting to come in since Trump was inaugurated, and an increase in people wanting to leave. Soon the Trump administration will need to follow the footsteps of their favorite fascists and start signing laws that restrict the movement of people who want to get out.