Law Professor on Obama's Administrative Amnesty

get_involved

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2009
2,046
430
130
"The administration is thus implementing by executive order a policy it could not get Congress to adopt or even consider: amnesty for the millions of foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally..."

"It is also sending a clear message to people all over the world who would like to try their luck in the U.S., though ineligible to do so because of U.S. immigration law: U.S. immigration law won't be enforced if all you want to do is work. Just get yourself into the U.S. by any means, don't commit serious crimes or threaten national security, and you will be able to compete with U.S. citizens for jobs. And since you're willing to work for lower wages and under worse conditions than U.S. citizens, you can probably beat them out for a job. So come on in!"

Law Prof on Obama's Administrative Amnesty | Center for Immigration Studies

It's good to be King!




_________
 
Last edited:
Jan Ting – one of the few in his field to recognize the problems created by Obama's administrative amnesty…

And with good reason why he’s ‘one of the few…’

It’s not ‘amnesty,’ regardless how many times the lie is repeated.

Does the good professor happen to mention where exactly these undocumented children will be deported to, as many have been here since before school age.

And it’s sad and telling when a professor of law is obviously unaware of Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1972) and Plyler v Doe (1982).
 
Jan Ting – one of the few in his field to recognize the problems created by Obama's administrative amnesty…

And with good reason why he’s ‘one of the few…’

It’s not ‘amnesty,’ regardless how many times the lie is repeated.

Does the good professor happen to mention where exactly these undocumented children will be deported to, as many have been here since before school age.

And it’s sad and telling when a professor of law is obviously unaware of Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1972) and Plyler v Doe (1982).

That's a bullshit response, C. Clayton.

If illegal mom and illegal pop came here from some foreign shithole, smuggling their illegal children with them, then deporting the lot of them back does no more harm to the kids than the mere happenstance of their having been born there in the first place.

Plus, if the foreign shithole happens to be too depraved or dangerous, the kids could apply for a variety of "relief" from deportation under current law, anyway.

But this reckless President's "executive order" evasion of the rule of law concerning a basic precept of our national sovereignty is intolerable.
 
Obama quote, whether he actually said them or not is immaterial, these are what he lives by. "I wasn't meant to be chained or bound by mere laws made by mortal men."
and, "Vote for me and I will set you free!"

His entire presidency is turning out to be totally one of an endless string of High Crimes and Misdeameanors.

November 6, 2012. One and done.
 
i fail to see how prioritization of deportation proceedings amounts to amnesty.
 
i fail to see how prioritization of deportation proceedings amounts to amnesty.

It doesnt.

What it does, however, is give those that are paid by the taxpayers to enforce the laws of our land reason to not be able to do so.

It was an irresponsible move by our president. He is not one that has the right to order the bypassing of our laws based on his own personal ideology.
 
i fail to see how prioritization of deportation proceedings amounts to amnesty.

It doesnt.

What it does, however, is give those that are paid by the taxpayers to enforce the laws of our land reason to not be able to do so.
how does it do that?
It was an irresponsible move by our president. He is not one that has the right to order the bypassing of our laws based on his own personal ideology.
again, maybe it's me, but i don't see how bumping dangerous criminals to the front of the deportation line is in any way 'irresponsible'
 
i fail to see how prioritization of deportation proceedings amounts to amnesty.

It doesnt.

What it does, however, is give those that are paid by the taxpayers to enforce the laws of our land reason to not be able to do so.
how does it do that?
It was an irresponsible move by our president. He is not one that has the right to order the bypassing of our laws based on his own personal ideology.
again, maybe it's me, but i don't see how bumping dangerous criminals to the front of the deportation line is in any way 'irresponsible'

Because it is not bumping them to the front of the line.
It is eliminating the others FROM the line.

There is a big difference.
 
i fail to see how prioritization of deportation proceedings amounts to amnesty.

It doesnt.

What it does, however, is give those that are paid by the taxpayers to enforce the laws of our land reason to not be able to do so.
how does it do that?
It was an irresponsible move by our president. He is not one that has the right to order the bypassing of our laws based on his own personal ideology.
again, maybe it's me, but i don't see how bumping dangerous criminals to the front of the deportation line is in any way 'irresponsible'

I am curious.....seeing as the order is to NOT deport those without criminal backgrounds...or more specifically....deport ONLY those with criminal backgrounds....why did you feel the need to spin it as "put the dangerous ones to the front of the line"?

Are you insecure with the truth of the order itself?
 
It doesnt.

What it does, however, is give those that are paid by the taxpayers to enforce the laws of our land reason to not be able to do so.
how does it do that?
It was an irresponsible move by our president. He is not one that has the right to order the bypassing of our laws based on his own personal ideology.
again, maybe it's me, but i don't see how bumping dangerous criminals to the front of the deportation line is in any way 'irresponsible'

I am curious.....seeing as the order is to NOT deport those without criminal backgrounds...or more specifically....deport ONLY those with criminal backgrounds....why did you feel the need to spin it as "put the dangerous ones to the front of the line"?

Are you insecure with the truth of the order itself?
you've bought the spin.
 
how does it do that?

again, maybe it's me, but i don't see how bumping dangerous criminals to the front of the deportation line is in any way 'irresponsible'

I am curious.....seeing as the order is to NOT deport those without criminal backgrounds...or more specifically....deport ONLY those with criminal backgrounds....why did you feel the need to spin it as "put the dangerous ones to the front of the line"?

Are you insecure with the truth of the order itself?
you've bought the spin.

Interesting you say that. The order is NOT to deport those without criminal backgrounds.
The reson is to make time to get rid of the criminlas...

But the order is not "put the non criminlas to the back of the lin"e...that I would understand.

The order is NOT to deport the non criminlas...only deport the criminlas.

So how did I fall for the spin?
 
Interesting you say that. The order is NOT to deport those without criminal backgrounds.
The reson is to make time to get rid of the criminlas...

But the order is not "put the non criminlas to the back of the lin"e...that I would understand.

The order is NOT to deport the non criminlas...only deport the criminlas.

So how did I fall for the spin?
have you read it? it being a memo, guidelines for prosecutorial descrition - not and executive order.
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

please tell me how that is in any way an order not to deport non-criminals
 

Forum List

Back
Top