Obama To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrant

Retired Mizer

Star
Registered
I waited to see if any of the devoted Obama supporters would post this article about the action that President Obama took today. What do you all feel about this? Great News, huh? So far we got Lilly Ledbetter for women(including the black women by default), Obama care for the insurance companies (including black people by default), Support for Gay Marriage for the Gays(including black gays by default)and now action for American-Born, undocumented Latinos( including the black latinos by default).

AFRICAN AMERICANS REJOICE!!!!:dance::dance::dance::dance:

Where are the Obama supporters at? Let us ALL applaud and celebrate this great news as Obama openly supports yet another voting block of his !!! Woo Hoo!!!

It sure is good to know The FIRST BLACK President really care for black people and he knows that we got his back while he plays chess!



(....weeee got yo baaaack!)





WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration responded to years of pressure from immigrants rights groups on Friday with an announcement that it will stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students.
"They pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper," President Barack Obama said of those young people in a press conference announcing the policy change.
Some 800,000 people are expected to come forward to receive deferred action from deportation, as first reported by the Associated Press on Friday morning. The policy change will apply to young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, along the same lines as the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 2010.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that the policy change is part of a general shift by the Obama administration to focus on deporting high-priority undocumented immigrants.
"This grant of deferred action is not immunity," she said. "It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system. It will help us to continue to streamline immigration enforcement and ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low-priority cases involving productive young people."
"More important, I believe this action is the right thing to do," she continued.
The policy change will effectively enable Dream Act-eligible young people, often called DREAMers, to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, and without legislation from a Congress that is unlikely to pass a bill.
Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years can apply for the relief, so long as they are under the age of 30, according to a memo from DHS. They also must be either an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces, or a student who has graduated from high school or obtained a GED. Immigrants will not be eligible if they "pose a threat to national security or public safety," including having been convicted of a felony, a "significant" misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, were instructed in a memo to immediately react by reviewing individual cases and preventing eligible immigrants from being put in removal proceedings. Those already in proceedings could be granted deferred action for two years, and then may apply for renewal. They will be given work authorization on a case-by-case basis.
A senior administration official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that most eligible undocumented immigrants will be required to go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide documents and pay a fee.
Still, there will be no pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants eligible for the policy change, because "Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights," according to the DHS announcement.
The administration has been under intense pressure from immigrant rights groups, some led by undocumented youth themselves, to make an executive order protecting DREAMers from deportation. Previously, though, officials had said the administration did not have the power to make an executive order blocking deportations for undocumented young people.
Asked about that change, a different senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that this is "the next step of prosecutorial discretion" along the same lines as it is already being applied, and not inconsistent with past statements.
The administration also emphasized that the policy change is no substitute for legislation on the issue. Obama called out Republicans -- some, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), by name, and others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), more vaguely -- for supporting immigration reform in the past but opposing it now. Hatch was one of the original cosponsors of the Dream Act in 2001, but voted against it in 2010. In time, Obama said he thinks Republicans will come around to support the bill as well.
"I've said time and time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away," Obama said. "Both parties wrote this legislation."
McCain responded in a statement, calling the action "a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system."
The announcement comes several months before the presidential election, where Obama hopes to win a significant portion of the vote from the Latino population, which supports the Dream Act by large margins. The majority of the population at large also supports the Dream Act, as defined by the 2010 bill, although by lower margins. The announcement also comes on the heels of Obama announcing his support for same-sex marriage -- similarly after years of urging from advocacy groups.
Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would veto the Dream Act under the 2010 framework, but has expressed some openness to considering upcoming legislation on young undocumented immigrants from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). That plan, which has yet to be introduced, would allow some undocumented immigrants who came as children to stay legally, but without any path to citizenship. A spokesman for Rubio did not respond to a request for comment on the administration announcement by the time of publication, nor did the Romney campaign.
A senior adviser for Romney told MSNBC's Chris Cilliza later Friday that the candidate will "focus intently on the economy," including in his message to Latino voters.
Rubio later said in a statement that the administration's action would hurt "broad support" for the idea that undocumented young people should be helped, but without encouraging unauthorized immigration. He said the new policy "will make [it] harder to achieve in the long run."
"Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem," Rubio said. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one."
Romney aligned himself with that position later in the day, telling reporters "the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution." Romney promised to seek that solution as president, but he did not address whether he would end Obama's policy change.
Republicans in Congress have largely decried legislation on the issue as amnesty. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said on Fox News Friday that the policy change could be "a backdoor opportunity to allow people to vote" -- though eligible young people would not be given voting rights under the new policy -- and that it should go through the legislative process instead.
Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) later told Mike Huckabee that he plans to sue to block implementation of the policy. Earlier, a spokeswoman for King, one of the biggest critics of the president on immigration reform, did not respond to requests for comment.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.
"President Obama's decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with the American people," Smith said. "It also blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama's oath to uphold the laws of this land."
A spokesperson for Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), who leads the House subcommittee dealing with immigration issues, did not respond to requests for comment.
Democratic supporters of the Dream Act applauded the decision. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of the administration on immigration, called the announcement a "tremendous first step," while Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he was "profoundly grateful" and that the policy change "will change [DREAMers'] lives forever." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the Dream Act in 2001, called it a "historic humanitarian moment."
"This action will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home," Durbin said in a statement.
DREAMers said on Friday they were cautiously optimistic about the news, but happy that the administration responded to their concerns.
Lizbeth Mateo, an undocumented 27-year-old who works with the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, said she has been disappointed before by seemingly positive announcements from the administration on immigration, such as when it took up stronger application of prosecutorial discretion, with the stated intent to close a number of deportation cases. Although many cases have been closed, immigrant rights groups argue that the policy has fallen short.
Another undocumented advocate for the Dream Act, Gaby Pacheco, said she, too, is waiting to see how far the policy goes in implementation.
"We feel that the work that we have been doing for the past couple of years has really come to fruition," she said. "A community has been able to organize and to speak out, and the president has responded."




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...on-order-deportation-dream-act_n_1599658.html
 
Last edited:
“The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true,” Obama told us last year.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, said,

“How can the Administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions of Americans are unemployed?” Mr. Smith said. “President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people".
 
I waited to see if any of the devoted Obama supporters would post this article about the action that President Obama took today.

What do you all feel about this? Great News, huh?
I didn't know every article about the President was being posted. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for the assist. I was also not aware that to support a politician means that you agree with every action that politician takes. I support the President, though I don't agree with his every action.

Is there anyone that you agree with, 100% ???

Assuming by "the action that President Obama took today" you are referring to his stand on immigration, politically speaking, I don't think it was a bad move - if it earned some support -- those who were the subject of his announcement weren't leaving anyway.

The President's opposition/detractors don't give a shit about anything but ousting him -- and, quite possibly, preserving a racial status quo that is unlikely to remain and was'nt designed for my/our benefit in the first instance. To them, everything is fair political game, if it tends to discredit the President or in any way lower his standing in the eyes of some voting group. Why should Barack Obama be limited ???
 
I didn't know every article about the President was being posted. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for the assist. I was also not aware that to support a politician means that you agree with every action that politician takes. I support the President, though I don't agree with his every action.

Is there anyone that you agree with, 100% ???

Assuming by "the action that President Obama took today" you are referring to his stand on immigration, politically speaking, I don't think it was a bad move - if it earned some support -- those who were the subject of his announcement weren't leaving anyway.

The President's opposition/detractors don't give a shit about anything but ousting him -- and, quite possibly, preserving a racial status quo that is unlikely to remain and was'nt designed for my/our benefit in the first instance. To them, everything is fair political game, if it tends to discredit the President or in any way lower his standing in the eyes of some voting group. Why should Barack Obama be limited ???

Oh, so you do not believe Barack Obama is here to maintain the racial status quo? I could have sworn Barack Obama was precisely selected to maintain white supremacy, the American empire, white racial pre-eminence, and multi-national corporate dominance, with the requisite imperialist military actions, and huge war spending.

I guess all these wars, these bank bailouts, and police state actions are really here so black people can have more freedom? Oh, but wait... black people are being imprisoned more, are poorer under Obama than Bush, and subject to more police murders than any other single group, out of all proportion to their numbers.

Yeah, Obama couldn't possibly be a tool to maintain the racial status quo.
 

Well, so far, its true to form. Those who are crying loudest against the President are the same ones who cry everyday.

I'm not saying that anyone has to like the President's strategy, (though I think its only a recognition of the inevitable), you guys pitching hissy fits, pitch hissy fits everyday.

That tells me at least one thing: the strategy must have raised the President's stock some-got-damn-where, or you wouldn't be boo-hooing so loudly! :lol:



 
I didn't know every article about the President was being posted. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for the assist. I was also not aware that to support a politician means that you agree with every action that politician takes. I support the President, though I don't agree with his every action.

Is there anyone that you agree with, 100% ???

Assuming by "the action that President Obama took today" you are referring to his stand on immigration, politically speaking, I don't think it was a bad move - if it earned some support -- those who were the subject of his announcement weren't leaving anyway.

The President's opposition/detractors don't give a shit about anything but ousting him -- and, quite possibly, preserving a racial status quo that is unlikely to remain and was'nt designed for my/our benefit in the first instance. To them, everything is fair political game, if it tends to discredit the President or in any way lower his standing in the eyes of some voting group. Why should Barack Obama be limited ???


This wasn't for you. At least I consider you a straight shooter-this is for those blatant Obama cheerleaders who plaster BGOL with every insignificant Obama factoids and constantly say Obama is the president of all while he's playing chess. Sorry if you don't get my sarcasm. Btw, I didn't see any of them respond to this either. My point is African-Americans are the only ones who don't hold their leaders accountable while making up every excuse for them in the process.. It's no wonder we are where we are as a people now politically.
 

Well, so far, its true to form. Those who are crying loudest against the President are the same ones who cry everyday.

I'm not saying that anyone has to like the President's strategy, (though I think its only a recognition of the inevitable), you guys pitching hissy fits, pitch hissy fits everyday.

That tells me at least one thing: the strategy must have raised the President's stock some-got-damn-where, or you wouldn't be boo-hooing so loudly! :lol:





I take back what I said about you being a straight-shooter!:(
I guess I am the only person who sees it to be ironic how voting blocks are catered to left and right, while the good ol' loyal African-Americans need to drink a tall glass of STFU while left hold the bag.
 
I take back what I said about you being a straight-shooter!:(
I guess I am the only person who sees it to be ironic how voting blocks are catered to left and right, while the good ol' loyal African-Americans need to drink a tall glass of STFU while left hold the bag.

No disrespect, but call me what you like. I appreciate compliments but I'm not disturbed at the opposite. I know in the end: it is what it is and I am what I am. I do my best, but like everyone else, I err.

You're right, voting blocs are catered to, left and right. I don't agree that we should just STFU. But, if there is something that we want as a bloc I believe it important that we articulate that want, whether its Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney in the White House. Personally, I think we've been rather inefficient and lack luster in doing precisely that.

WE did a lot better job of articulating OUR needs/wants during the so-called Civil Rights Era, but less so in the fractured days hence. Frankly, when you take a look at the today's Hispanic/Latino (whichever, not meaning to be disrespectful) Movement, in large part, the way it articulates its demands and coalesces around its demands, mirrors where we were at a points in time ante.
 

Frankly,

I read this:

I take back what I said about you being a straight-shooter!:(
I guess I am the only person who sees it to be ironic how voting blocks are catered to left and right, while the good ol' loyal African-Americans need to drink a tall glass of STFU while left hold the bag.


Before (because I just saw) this:

This wasn't for you. At least I consider you a straight shooter-this is for those blatant Obama cheerleaders who plaster BGOL with every insignificant Obama factoids and constantly say Obama is the president of all while he's playing chess. Sorry if you don't get my sarcasm. Btw, I didn't see any of them respond to this either. My point is African-Americans are the only ones who don't hold their leaders accountable while making up every excuse for them in the process.. It's no wonder we are where we are as a people now politically.


Now, if you give me a moment to read them both, in context, I will respond, anew.

 
LOL. Now that I've read it, let me say to me, what I was about to say to you:

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one it hits is the one that squeals.

I was about to make that statement to you - - in response to your reply at Post #7 to my Post #5. That is, by your reply in #7, you must have been one of the dogs that got hit by my #5. LOL

The fact is, however, in my #8, I was apparently one of the dogs hit by your #7. :lol:
 
This wasn't for you. At least I consider you a straight shooter-this is for those blatant Obama cheerleaders who plaster BGOL with every insignificant Obama factoids and constantly say Obama is the president of all while he's playing chess. Sorry if you don't get my sarcasm. Btw, I didn't see any of them respond to this either.

My point is African-Americans are the only ones who don't hold their leaders accountable while making up every excuse for them in the process.. It's no wonder we are where we are as a people now politically.

I think from my comments above, we're pretty much in harmony, on this point. I don't know that we "make excuses" as much as we seem to have abandoned "collective action" - - as a tool.


 
No disrespect, but call me what you like. I appreciate compliments but I'm not disturbed at the opposite. I know in the end: it is what it is and I am what I am. I do my best, but like everyone else, I err.

You're right, voting blocs are catered to, left and right. I don't agree that we should just STFU. But, if there is something that we want as a bloc I believe it important that we articulate that want, whether its Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney in the White House. Personally, I think we've been rather inefficient and lack luster in doing precisely that.

WE did a lot better job of articulating OUR needs/wants during the so-called Civil Rights Era, but less so in the fractured days hence. Frankly, when you take a look at the today's Hispanic/Latino (whichever, not meaning to be disrespectful) Movement, in large part, the way it articulates its demands and coalesces around its demands, mirrors where we were at a points in time ante.


Thats my point. I think it is harmful to maintain the mentality that we are not going to "rock the boat" or say anything that can be miscontrued because Obama is our first African-American president. A closed mouth doesn't get fed and I am not requesting accountability of just Obama, but ANYBODY who receives our African-American votes.
 
Thats my point. I think it is harmful to maintain the mentality that we are not going to "rock the boat" or say anything that can be miscontrued because Obama is our first African-American president. A closed mouth doesn't get fed and I am not requesting accountability of just Obama, but ANYBODY who receives our African-American votes.

Precisely. But, how do we rock the boat, respectfully, yet send the strongest of messages that we're not to be fucked with ? ? ?

 

Obama's immigration move wins
support in battleground states





By Paul West
Los Angeles Times
June 18, 2012



WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decision to extend administrative relief to an estimated 800,000 young illegal immigrants has won favor with Latino voters in key battleground states, according to a new poll.

The Latino Decisions survey found that Obama’s move had wiped out an earlier “enthusiasm deficit” among Hispanic voters over the administration’s deportation policies. By contrast, the poll found that Latino voters were sharply opposed to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s call for illegal immigrants to “self-deport.”

Voters in five states with significant portions of Latino voters — Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Arizona — were asked about Obama’s new policy of halting deportations and offering temporary work permits to some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before they were 16, lived here for at least five years and have clean records.

  • Forty-nine percent of the Latino voters surveyed said Obama’s move made them more enthusiastic about the president, compared with 14% who were less enthusiastic. Thirty-four percent said it would have no effect on their attitude toward Obama.

  • That “enthusiasm advantage” of 35 percentage points compares with a 19-point deficit in a survey earlier this year, when Latino voters were asked about the high level of deportations of immigrants under the Obama administration.


The June 15 announcement of the new action on immigration “appears to have clearly erased Obama’s enthusiasm deficit among Latinos,” said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political scientist and one of the founders of Latino Decisions. The survey firm conducted the new poll in conjunction with America’s Voice, a liberal advocacy group.


Romney’s hard-line rhetoric on immigration has helped give Obama an advantage among Latino voters, national polls have shown.

In the new poll, voters were asked about Romney’s call for illegal immigrants to return voluntarily to their former countries and his statements about making Arizona’s immigration laws a model for the nation.

  • Only 10% of Latinos said Romney’s positions made them more enthusiastic about him, while 59% made them less enthusiastic, an “enthusiasm deficit” of negative 49 points.

The survey was conducted June 12-16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%.​



FULL ARTICLE



 
Since I'm not devoted to anybody I'm not married to, this wasn't aimed at me but I see that every one of the initiatives done by Obama benefit Black people (as pointed out by the OP).

As far as this particular things is concerned, I don't have any feelings for it. If they had passed the DREAM Act, it wouldn't be necessary but it is the right thing to do, a great poltical move and it's perfectly legal. It's really a very small step but the alternative was nothing at all.
 
No disrespect, but call me what you like. I appreciate compliments but I'm not disturbed at the opposite. I know in the end: it is what it is and I am what I am. I do my best, but like everyone else, I err.

You're right, voting blocs are catered to, left and right. I don't agree that we should just STFU. But, if there is something that we want as a bloc I believe it important that we articulate that want, whether its Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney in the White House. Personally, I think we've been rather inefficient and lack luster in doing precisely that.

WE did a lot better job of articulating OUR needs/wants during the so-called Civil Rights Era, but less so in the fractured days hence. Frankly, when you take a look at the today's Hispanic/Latino (whichever, not meaning to be disrespectful) Movement, in large part, the way it articulates its demands and coalesces around its demands, mirrors where we were at a points in time ante.

:yes:
 
QXHXP.SlMa.91.jpeg
 
June 22, 2012



Obama far ahead of Romney among Hispanics in key states



As President Barack Obama prepares to address a convention of Latino elected and appointed officials in Florida Friday, a new poll shows him far ahead of Republican Mitt Romney among Hispanics in five key swing states.

Hispanics are expected to comprise about 9 percent of the vote this year, and could be particularly crucial in swing states.

Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Offices at their conference in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., Thursday and was met with polite but lackluster applause. Obama is expected to get a far warmer reception.

Latino Decisions pollsters surveyed 400 Hispanics each in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia.​


  • In Florida, Obama led Romney, 53-37 percent;

  • He had a 74-18 margin in Arizona;


  • Obama was up 70-22 in Colorado;

  • Nevada Hispanics preferred Obama, 69-20 percent; and

  • Virginia Latinos gave him a 59-28 percent edge.


Registered voters were surveyed between June 12 and 21. Each state sample has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.


Read more here: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washin...ng-hispanics-in-key-states.html#storylink=cpy
 
Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?



Then:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OpQgAzAJQ7I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Shake


bce.gif


Now:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pf944gjZj1I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Obama’s immigration maneuver
could box in Romney, GOP



13zHbl.WiPh.91.jpg

People celebrate President Barack Obama's announcement regarding illegal
immigration, June 15, 2012 | Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT



McClatchy Newspapers
By Erika Bolstad |
Sunday, June 24, 2012




WASHINGTON — In the week since President Barack Obama announced a plan that would allow some young illegal immigrants to stay in this country, Republicans have struggled to embrace any version of immigration reform.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has fumbled to answer questions about how he would handle such undocumented youth if he were elected president. And Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who never had a bill in writing but who began talking about his own immigration plan for young people this spring, told national news outlets that the president should have called him.

Obama took a similar idea as his, implemented it through the executive branch, "and now it’s the greatest idea in the world," the Florida senator complained Friday in Orlando in a speech to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, a day after Romney spoke to the gathering, and just before Obama himself took the stage.

"I don’t care who gets the credit," Rubio said. "I don’t. But it exposes the fact that this issue is all about politics for some people. Not just Democrats. Republicans too."

Obama and many Democrats say that Republicans have had – and still have – plenty of opportunities to contribute, and are directly responsible for the current state of immigration politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this week accused Republicans, in particular Rubio, of expressing "phony outrage" over the administration’s policy. The administration’s directive allows young illegal immigrants who were raised in the United States to remain for two years under a deferred deportation.

"Leading Republican voices on immigration have yet to actually disagree with the decision," Reid said on the Senate floor. "The complaints are varied, but they have one thing in common: None of them actually take issue with the substance of President Obama’s directive."

Republicans could have supported the DREAM Act in 2010, Reid said, when it came up for two votes in the Senate and failed to get the 60 votes needed to proceed to a full vote. And Rubio, Democrats note, could have expressed support for it on the campaign trail, sending a signal to fellow Republicans that the idea had backing from a leading Hispanic political figure.

The DREAM Act would allow young people who came to the U.S. illegally as children to stay here if they are in college or go into the military.


SOURCE/MORE





 
Easy.

The Constitution of the Untited States, Article I, Section States that CONGRESS has the power

Obama didn't grant anyone citizenship so that's an irrelevent point. He decided, as is within his power, to direct resources to deporting more urgent illegals, such as criminals.
 
Obama didn't grant anyone citizenship so that's an irrelevent point. He decided, as is within his power, to direct resources to deporting more urgent illegals, such as criminals.

So does congress have, or not have, that power?

Although I do strongly agree that there should be priorities in law enforcement (go after murderers before jaywalkers), this latest pronouncement is not that, as it does not say hold on for now, it says stop. Big difference, n'est pas?
 
So does congress have, or not have, that power?

Although I do strongly agree that there should be priorities in law enforcement (go after murderers before jaywalkers), this latest pronouncement is not that, as it does not say hold on for now, it says stop. Big difference, n'est pas?


Unless you are a legal scholar, for future reference site sources for your opinions.
 
So does congress have, or not have, that power?

You're creating an argument where none exist. Of course they have that power. They have chosen to not exercise it for political reasons.

Although I do strongly agree that there should be priorities in law enforcement (go after murderers before jaywalkers), this latest pronouncement is not that, as it does not say hold on for now, it says stop. Big difference, n'est pas?

That's exactly what it is. There are jurisdictions where the police don't even investigate car break ins. There isn't a "hold on for now" option, either you do something or you don't.
 
You're creating an argument where none exist. Of course they have that power. They have chosen to not exercise it for political reasons.



That's exactly what it is. There are jurisdictions where the police don't even investigate car break ins. There isn't a "hold on for now" option, either you do something or you don't.

Not true at all. That is the whole point of many taskforces that go on all over the country. Cops get re-assigned to higher crime areas. It does not at all mean that they will not come back to the other neighborhoods.

And let's not get off track. Congress makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them. Period. They should enforce the laws. If you take something of mine woithout permission, the time you have it has no bearing on if it's theft or not. Same thing with illegal immigration. If you are not documented, and not a citizen, you are here illegally. Period.
 
And let's not get off track. Congress makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them. Period. They should enforce the laws. If you take something of mine woithout permission, the time you have it has no bearing on if it's theft or not. Same thing with illegal immigration. If you are not documented, and not a citizen, you are here illegally. Period.

nice analogy!
 
Back
Top