Executive Action on Immigratiion.

[KingOrfeo]

The Democrats are lauding Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation executive order as a fair comparison of Obama's order, but Lincolns order had no enduring resilience as the Dred Scott Decision would nullify it at the end of the war. All Lincoln could do was delay returning slaves to their owners. Obama's ploy is simply a stay of execution for deportations. He's buying time.

. . . You do know the slaves never were returned to their owners, don't you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B20hQ23CYAAyYAj.png:large

Obviously Reagan was a socialist....he too enacted socialized HC, the most expensively overpriced and backwards socialist HC ever to be more accurate.

Now this? Oh...blood red commie that Reagan guy....blood red hammer and sickle I tell ya.

 

[landslider2000]

Obama has said at least 22 times in the past that he couldn’t simply create his own immigration law or ignore the statues already on the books. “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States,” he said in 2008.

 

[cowslinger64]

Obama has said at least 22 times in the past that he couldn’t simply create his own immigration law or ignore the statues already on the books. “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States,” he said in 2008.

That was before this bullshit:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

 

[Que Va]

:nods:

The Constitution was never designed to apply when a President is unable to get his way.

I mean, come ON!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The President should have done this exact thing this Summer.

He is pretty much a disaster of a President, but not because of his public policy.

 

[DooleyDarter]

No matter what he does tonight, it wont affect most of us, only those who are here illegal. So it really isn't a big deal. I hope the repubs pass a comprehensive immigration bill after the first of the year an send it to obamas desk for a veto.

 

[PayDay]

More like a nationwide furor.

This. /end thread.

We've known about this for nearly a week already, and still Congress hasn't produced a bill of their own to sidestep Obama. They just whine and let him fill the power vacuum.

This---^ Seconded.

http://news.yahoo.com/reagan-bush-acted-alone-shield-immigrants-171420251.html

Without any form of concensus? I find that hard to believe.

In the sense of being represented in every state, as are syphilis and AIDS and zits, but not in any other sense. WRT Obama's plan to halt deportations by executive order, the country is split down the middle, and support/opposition breaks down along partisan lines.

This--^ ...but not just partisan lines. That Salon article as per par is probably only grain of salt worthy. There has been no vote so you don't actually know the split and the official election results aren't in until December.

Too many variables. The point is chaos, obviously.

Obama's anti-Americanism continues unabated.

This too---^

The Democrats are lauding Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation executive order as a fair comparison of Obama's order, but Lincolns order had no enduring resilience as the Dred Scott Decision would nullify it at the end of the war. All Lincoln could do was delay returning slaves to their owners. Obama's ploy is simply a stay of execution for deportations. He's buying time.

Justice Curtis dissenting on Dred Scott: That case was @all about citizenship

"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."

http://joeryancivilwar.com/Civil-War-Subjects/Dred-Scott/Chief-Justice-Taney-Dred-Scott.html

Here' some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Dissents_by_Justice_Curtis_and_Justice_McLean

Curtis, in dissent, attacked much of the Court's decision as*obiter dicta, on the ground that once the Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case, it must simply dismiss the action, and not pass judgment on the merits of the claims. The dissents by Curtis and McLean also attacked the Court's overturning of the Missouri Compromise on its merits, noting both that it was not necessary to decide the question, and also that none of the authors of the Constitution had ever objected on constitutional grounds to the United States Congress' adoption of the antislavery provisions of the*Northwest Ordinance*passed by the Continental Congress, or the subsequent acts that barred slavery north of*36°30' N.

Nor, these justices argued, was there any basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in five of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States.[21]*Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the argument that Scott was not a citizen was "more a matter of taste than of law". In his dissent, Justice McLean cited as precedent*Marie Louise v. Marot*an 1835 case in which*Louisiana Supreme Court*Chief Justice*George Mathews Jr.*ruled that "being free for one moment in [territory non-permitting of slavery], it was not in the power of [a] former owner to reduce [a slave] again to slavery."*[22]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Dissent_Curtis

As I conceive, we should deal here, not with such disputes, if there can be a dispute concerning this subject, but with those substantial facts evinced by the written Constitutions of States, and by the notorious practice under them. And they show, in a manner which no argument can obscure, that in some of the original thirteen States, free colored persons, before and at the time of the formation of the Constitution, were citizens of those States.
...
That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of 'the people of the United States,' by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.

I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native- born citizens of any State after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.
...
If there be such a thing as citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognises, and no one denies, then these four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.

That the Constitution itself has defined citizenship of the United States by declaring what persons, born within the several States, shall or shall not be citizens of the United States, will not be pretended. It contains no such declaration. We may dismiss the first alternative, as without doubt unfounded.

Has it empowered Congress to enact what free persons, born within the several States, shall or shall not be citizens of the United States?
...
Among the powers unquestionably possessed by the several States, was that of determining what persons should and what persons should not be citizens. It was practicable to confer on the Government of the Union this entire power. It embraced what may, well enough for the purpose now in view, be divided into three parts. First: The power to remove the disabilities of alienage, either by special acts in reference to each individual case, or by establishing a rule of naturalization to be administered and applied by the courts. Second: Determining what persons should enjoy the privileges of citizenship, in respect to the internal affairs of the several States. Third: What native-born persons should be citizens of the United States.
...
Laying aside, then, the case of aliens, concerning which the Constitution of the United States has provided, and confining our view to free persons born within the several States, we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of brith; that it has not attempted practically to apply this principle by designating the particular classes of persons who should or should not come under it; that when we turn to the Constitution for an answer to the question, what free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States, the only answer we can receive from any of its express provisions is, the citizens of the several States are to enjoy the privileges and immunities of citizens in every State, and their franchise as electors under the Constitution depends on their citizenship in the several States. Add to this, that the Constitution was ordained by the citizens of the several States; that they were 'the people of the United States,' for whom [60 U.S. 393, 582] and whose posterity the Government was declared in the preamble of the Constitution to be made; that each of them was 'a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,' within the meaning of those words in that instrument; they by them the Government was to be and was in fact organized; and that no power is conferred on the Government of the Union to discriminate between them, or to disfranchise any of them-the necessary conclusion is, that those persons born within the several States, who, by force of their respective Constitutions and laws, are citizens of the State, are thereby citizens of the United States.

It may be proper here to notice some supposed objections to this vies of the subject.

It has been often asserted that the Constitution was made exclusively by and for the white race. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. If so, it is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is, in my opinion, not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established.
...
The second is drawn from consideration equally general, concerning the right of self-government, and the nature of the political institutions which have been established by the people of the United States.
...
Whether there be anything in the Constitution from which a broader power may be implied, will best be seen when we come to examine the two other alternatives, which are, whether all free persons, born on the soil of the several States, or only such of them as may be citizens of each State, respectively, are thereby citizens of the United States. The last of these alternatives, in my judgment, contains the truth.
...
Again, it has been objected, that if the Constitution has left to the several States the rightful power to determine who of their inhabitants shall be citizens of the United States, the States may make aliens citizens.
...
To what citizens the elective franchise shall be confided, is a question to be determined by each State, in accordance with its own views of the necessities or expediencies of its condition. What civil rights shall be enjoyed by its citizens, and whether all shall enjoy the same, or how they may be gained or lost, are to be determined in the same way.
...
The conclusions at which I have arrived on this part of the case are:

First.*That the free native-born citizens of each State are citizens of the United States.

Second.*That as free colored persons born within some of the States are citizens of those States, such persons are also citizens of the United States.

Third.*That every such citizen, residing in any State, has the right to sue and is liable to be sued in the Federal courts, as a citizen of that State in which he resides.

Fourth.*That as the plea to the jurisdiction in this case shows no facts, except that the plaintiff was of African descent, and his ancestors were sold as slaves, and as these facts are not inconsistent with his citizenship of the United States, and his residence in the State of Missouri, the plea to the jurisdiction was bad, and the judgment of the Circuit Court overruling it was correct.

I dissent, therefore, from that part of the opinion of the majority of the court, in which it is held that a person of African descent cannot be a citizen of the United States; and I regret I must go further, and dissent both from what I deem their assumption of authority to examine the constitutionality of the act of Congress commonly called the Missouri compromise [60 U.S. 393, 589] act, and the grounds and conclusions announced in their opinion.
...
But it must have been apparent, both to the framers of the Constitution and the people of the several States who were to act upon it, that the Government thus provided for could not continue, unless the Constitution should confer on the United States the necessary powers to continue it. That temporary Government, under the ordinance, was to consist of certain officers, to be appointed by and responsible to the Congress of the Confederation; their powers had been conferred and defined by the ordinance. So far as it provided for the temporary government of the Territory, it was an ordinary act of legislation, deriving its force from the legislative power of Congress, and depending for its vitality upon the continuance of that legislative power. But the officers to be appointed for the Northwestern Territory, after the adoption of the Constitution, must necessarily be officers of the United States, and not of the Congress of the Confederation; appointed and commissioned by the President, and exercising powers derived from the United States under the Constitution.

 

[toubab]

No matter what he does tonight, it wont affect most of us, only those who are here illegal. So it really isn't a big deal. I hope the repubs pass a comprehensive immigration bill after the first of the year an send it to obamas desk for a veto.

I think it's good to inform, or remind, people of where most illegals come from, and who will be affected by whatever Obama does, and whatever the Congress does next year. Most come from Mexico, but here's a list of the top 10 countries illegals come from:

As of 2012

Country/ Population

1. Mexico 6,720,000
2. El Salvador 690,000
3. Guatemala 560,000
4. Honduras 360,000
5. Philippines 310,000
6. India 260,000
7. Korea 230,000
8. China 210,000
9. Ecuador 170,000
10. Vietnam 160,000

 

[BotanyBoy]

Obama has said at least 22 times in the past that he couldn’t simply create his own immigration law or ignore the statues already on the books. “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States,” he said in 2008.

He also said he was going to end the wars in the middle east and bring our troops home...

He also said he was going to go after comprehensive HC reform...

He also said he would respect states rights and not raid the fuck out of MMJ states...

He also kept if not expanded most Bush policy when he had a chance to smash it...like the patriot act.

LOL yea he's such a LIBERAL MARXIST!!

Paint him white and put an (R) in front of his name and the same lot of shit bags screaming commie!! at him would be sucking him off till the end of fucking time.

No matter what he does tonight, it wont affect most of us, only those who are here illegal. So it really isn't a big deal. I hope the repubs pass a comprehensive immigration bill after the first of the year an send it to obamas desk for a veto.

LOL unlikely....republicans have no interest in passing any legislation for shit or doing fuck all for the people of this nation...they are far more interested in getting shit on Obamas shoes and keeping the war machine rolling. That's the fuck it.


This is all republicans are going to do...
http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/45/e8/45e88a_790486.jpg

This is all liburhulz are going to do...
http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/fsyj.jpg

And nothing will be accomplished.

Personally I hope they open the flood gates and let em in.....

 

[Wrong Element]

While I have some sympathy for those who have been in the United States for a while just because someone robs a bank and you don't catch them for a while doesn't mean they get to keep the money and go without punishment.

Like wise you would not punish the children when they were caught.

But, If they are NOT citizens of the USA THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE!

Sure some unmerited favor can be shown to those who have managed to stay out of trouble...Hell, a large amount would make good citizens.

But HELL NO,

No fucking automatic rubber stamping citizenship for illegal aliens!

What do say to those who did it the right way?

What the hell are you talking about? Obama isn't conferring citizenship on anybody.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

While I have some sympathy for those who have been in the United States for a while just because someone robs a bank and you don't catch them for a while doesn't mean they get to keep the money and go without punishment.

Like wise you would not punish the children when they were caught.

But, If they are NOT citizens of the USA THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE!

Sure some unmerited favor can be shown to those who have managed to stay out of trouble...Hell, a large amount would make good citizens.

But HELL NO,

No fucking automatic rubber stamping citizenship for illegal aliens!

What do say to those who did it the right way?

Can I assume you have no problem paying for the child?

 

[NickiC]

While I have some sympathy for those who have been in the United States for a while just because someone robs a bank and you don't catch them for a while doesn't mean they get to keep the money and go without punishment.

Like wise you would not punish the children when they were caught.

But, If they are NOT citizens of the USA THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE!

Sure some unmerited favor can be shown to those who have managed to stay out of trouble...Hell, a large amount would make good citizens.

But HELL NO,

No fucking automatic rubber stamping citizenship for illegal aliens!

What do say to those who did it the right way?

Here is my problem with your argument. If you aren't a native of America what gives you the right to decide who gets to live here? America is on such a down slide and you worry about Mexicans? Lets fix our problems and make this country get better. I am very sad that we polarized. But stop on the right and left listening to pundits

 

[landslider2000]

There is no provision in our constitutional scheme which provides that a frustrated president may act on his own.

Obama's executive order was based on no legislation, and it runs counter to legislation and to the will of the voters as just articulated in an election.

Obama said over 20 times that he lacked authority to do what he just did.

 

[phrodeau]

There is no provision in our constitutional scheme which provides that a frustrated president may act on his own.

Obama's executive order was based on no legislation, and it runs counter to legislation and to the will of the voters as just articulated in an election.

Obama said over 20 times that he lacked authority to do what he just did.

Yes, there is, implicit in Article II. One person to head the executive branch, so that when urgent action is needed, he can act.

 

[doctor_insanus]

"Pass a bill."

Perfect.

Time for the teabaggers to do their goddamn jobs and stop throwing hissy fits whenever they don't get their way.

 

[PayDay]

Yes, there is, implicit in Article II. One person to head the executive branch, so that when urgent action is needed, he can act.

Right, but there is no urgent crisis with which to enstate that action except for ex-post facto which is strictly prohibited.

 

[PayDay]

"Pass a bill."

Perfect.

Time for the teabaggers to do their goddamn jobs and stop throwing hissy fits whenever they don't get their way.

Right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This. /end thread.



This---^ Seconded.



Without any form of concensus? I find that hard to believe.



This--^ ...but not just partisan lines. That Salon article as per par is probably only grain of salt worthy. There has been no vote so you don't actually know the split and the official election results aren't in until December.

Too many variables. The point is chaos, obviously.



This too---^


Justice Curtis dissenting on Dred Scott: That case was @all about citizenship

http://joeryancivilwar.com/Civil-War-Subjects/Dred-Scott/Chief-Justice-Taney-Dred-Scott.html

Here' some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Dissents_by_Justice_Curtis_and_Justice_McLean


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Dissent_Curtis

Curtis' opinion, of course, went in the MACHTS NICHTS file just like 14th Amendment appeals since that time. Its creation was illegal as hell but the Supremes wont touch it with a pole. For if they did Dred Scott would rise from the grave to replace it.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Right, but there is no urgent crisis with which to enstate that action except for ex-post facto which is strictly prohibited.

Sure seemed like an "urgent crisis" when a certain political faction was screaming about the dirty unwashed filthy disease-ridden unskilled unedumacated Mexican hordes "invading" our country with the EBOLA and the ISIS and job-stealing cheap blue collar labor and bad Gael Garcia Bernal movies and and and...

 

[Ramone45]

This is the action of a petulant, spiteful man. Absolutely no capacity for leadership. The American people elected someone who was not qualified to be dog catcher to lead the most powerful nation on earth. Why should we be surprised?

 

[Ramone45]

Fittingly, this executive action isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Right, but there is no urgent crisis with which to enstate that action except for ex-post facto which is strictly prohibited.

President Obama gave Congress 6 years to come up with a solution. They failed.

Nature abhors a vacuum so the President opted to act. Good for him.

 

[contrifan32]

Yea, now he can claim to be a tough guy like Putin.

 

[possum123]

How many of Obama's relatives will take advantage of his order?
He does have several relatives living in the U.S. illegally.
I think they have a word for a politician who makes a law which will benefit their relatives.