ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Look up DAPA. It was ruled unconstitutional. DACA will suffer the same fate. Regardless of what some left wing activist judge says, the Executive Branch cannot create new law, nor do they have the authority to grant amnesty. That boy really dumb.
DAPA was deadlocked by scotus and deffered status is not amnesty. Presidents do this crap because congress is a bunch of dickless windbags. So far none of this stuff has ever been ruled unconstitutional, just argued about a lot. SCOTUS has ruled many times that it is up to the executive branch to decide who is or isn't deported.

As the Supreme Court explained in Arizona v. United States, “a principal feature of the removal system [used to remove immigrants from the country] is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” When confronted with an immigration who is eligible for deportation, executive branch officials still must decide “as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”
 
DACA creates new law and purposely circumvents existing law on the books created by the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch cannot create new law via EO. This is not debatable. Any judge, who actually rules on it by the letter of the law, will find it unconstitutional.
 
DACA creates new law and purposely circumvents existing law on the books created by the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch cannot create new law via EO. This is not debatable. Any judge, who actually rules on it by the letter of the law, will find it unconstitutional.


I really don't get what the left thinks the outcome will be if a white knight activist judge comes in to say DACA is Constitutional.

Trump can still just tear it up.
 
DACA creates new law and purposely circumvents existing law on the books created by the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch cannot create new law via EO. This is not debatable. Any judge, who actually rules on it by the letter of the law, will find it unconstitutional.
DACA doesn't create any new law and wasn't done through EO, get your shit straight. it was done by DHS through Napolanito's (sp) memo. all it does is give preferred status, which any president can do, and allows them to work and use medicare. The social security stuff is kinda hazy but congress likes to write a lot of contradictory laws.


Having established that the executive does have the unilateral authority to permit certain undocumented immigrants to remain in the country — a process known as “deferred action” — the rest of the benefits afforded to DACA beneficiaries flow from federal law. Federal regulations promulgated in 1981, for example, list “an alien who has been granted deferred action” as one of several kinds of immigrants who may “apply for employment authorization” from the federal government.

These regulations were effectively ratified by Congress in 1986, when Congress enacted a “comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States.” Notably, this law includes an explicit exemption for non-citizens “authorized to be so employed . . . by the Attorney General.” (Subsequent legislation transferred this power to the Secretary of Homeland Security.)

A similar law governs Social Security and Medicare benefits. Though federal law ordinarily provides that “an alien who is not a qualified alien . . . is not eligible for any Federal public benefit,” the same law allows Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid “to an alien who is lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General” (a power that, again, was later transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security).

In fairness, the case for providing Social Security and Medicare benefits to DACA beneficiaries is a little weaker than the case for the other benefits. A somewhat esoteric argument can be made that DACA beneficiaries are not “lawfully present”within the United States, and therefore cannot be determined to be as much by federal officials. But even if this argument is correct, that does not change the fact that the lion’s share of DACA’s benefits — the ability to live in America openly and work freely — are firmly within the executive branch’s authority.
 
I really don't get what the left thinks the outcome will be if a white knight activist judge comes in to say DACA is Constitutional.

Trump can still just tear it up.
Yeah, that's another thing I didn't get about his first post on the topic. At they end of the day, DACA is still just an EO, not law. Trump doesn't have to offer "legally adequate reasons" to end it.
 
Yeah, that's another thing I didn't get about his first post on the topic. At they end of the day, DACA is still just an EO, not law. Trump doesn't have to offer "legally adequate reasons" to end it.
no matter how many times you repeat it, its still not true. DACA is not an EO.
 
DACA doesn't create any new law and wasn't done through EO, get your shit straight. it was done by DHS through Napolanito's (sp) memo. all it does is give preferred status, which any president can do, and allows them to work and use medicare. The social security stuff is kinda hazy but congress likes to write a lot of contradictory laws.


Having established that the executive does have the unilateral authority to permit certain undocumented immigrants to remain in the country — a process known as “deferred action” — the rest of the benefits afforded to DACA beneficiaries flow from federal law. Federal regulations promulgated in 1981, for example, list “an alien who has been granted deferred action” as one of several kinds of immigrants who may “apply for employment authorization” from the federal government.

These regulations were effectively ratified by Congress in 1986, when Congress enacted a “comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States.” Notably, this law includes an explicit exemption for non-citizens “authorized to be so employed . . . by the Attorney General.” (Subsequent legislation transferred this power to the Secretary of Homeland Security.)

A similar law governs Social Security and Medicare benefits. Though federal law ordinarily provides that “an alien who is not a qualified alien . . . is not eligible for any Federal public benefit,” the same law allows Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid “to an alien who is lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General” (a power that, again, was later transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security).

In fairness, the case for providing Social Security and Medicare benefits to DACA beneficiaries is a little weaker than the case for the other benefits. A somewhat esoteric argument can be made that DACA beneficiaries are not “lawfully present”within the United States, and therefore cannot be determined to be as much by federal officials. But even if this argument is correct, that does not change the fact that the lion’s share of DACA’s benefits — the ability to live in America openly and work freely — are firmly within the executive branch’s authority.
From the same Think Progress article you stole and pasted here...

“The DACA program was created by the Obama administration through a 2012 executive action
 
So Shepard Smith and others saying Russia is already trying to influence our 2018 mid terms. Not one person bothered to say how.
They want libidiots to think that Russia hacked into the voting machines and changed votes. If, and that's a fantasy if, they did anything it was to reveal how dirty Hillary and her henchmen actually are. That's it. They interfered by telling people the truth and the dems can't have that.
 
DACA was a DHS memo telling the kids they now have preferred status if they put in an application. no EO was ever released for daca.
 
“Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be allowed to remain in the country without fear of deportation and able to work, under an executive action the Obama administration announced on Friday.”

“Now let’s be clear: this is not an amnesty,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden, anticipating the Republican response. “This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix.”

Even had an official Rose Garden announcement. :joy:
 
Front page of fox news all articles attacking trumps incompetence. He gonna go on one he'll of a Twitter rant tonight.

DHS used the powers that congress gave them when they consolidated all the power to one main agency. The executive branch can pursue or not pursue deportation at their discretion. Giving them access to Medicaid and social security is a gray area but almost of them have jobs now and are paying taxes. An executive action is not an executive order. Use your tiny brain.
 
“Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be allowed to remain in the country without fear of deportation and able to work, under an executive action the Obama administration announced on Friday.”

“Now let’s be clear: this is not an amnesty,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden, anticipating the Republican response. “This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix.”

Even had an official Rose Garden announcement. :joy:

"no matter how many times you repeat it, its still not true. DACA is not an EO."
 
Is an order different from an executive action?

Not exactly. "Executive action" is a catch-all term that describes any action taken by a president. So technically, an executive order is one type of executive action. Other common types include presidential memorandums and proclamations, which are also used to direct the operations of the executive branch.

Judges were using Trumps tweets prior to being President to rule on the travel ban...I can only imagine what they think of President Obama’s comments on DACA “this is not a permanent fix.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: moe_schmoe
So, basically, you do realize that claiming DACA is just a memo from the Executive Branch directing DHS who to defer and who to deport actually weakens its position and makes it easier get rid of, don't you?

There's a new Executive Branch. They can write their own memo directing DHS not to defer anyone. Easy peasy.
 
And now that John is here, the sock is gone. Also, after pointing this out, there's a good chance the sock will return.
 




Speaking of Joy, she thinks the greatest driver of our debt is the Trump’s tax cut moving forward? No one tell her about the Obama years.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT