Obama To Terrorists: Y'all Come!

[PoliticalChic]

i posted for you the portion of the law that grants the secretary of homeland defense and the secretary of state the ability to grant exemptions after consultation with each other and the attorney general. that's a part of the law that was passed by congress and signed by the president - satisfying acticles I and II of the constitution.

so have they acted outside of the law by granting these waivers?

The Constitution is the law of the land.

Surely you know that.

that's not being disputed and you're not being honest by pretending it is.

is the INA, a law passed by congress and signed by the president, constitutional? if it is, as it must be assumed until it is found otherwise in the courts, then the waivers are in accordance with the powers granted by the law.

or do you have any evidence to suggest that the waivers are not allowed under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i)?

Do you understand the difference between legislative branch and the executive branch?

 

[ogibillm]

The Constitution is the law of the land.

Surely you know that.

that's not being disputed and you're not being honest by pretending it is.

is the INA, a law passed by congress and signed by the president, constitutional? if it is, as it must be assumed until it is found otherwise in the courts, then the waivers are in accordance with the powers granted by the law.

or do you have any evidence to suggest that the waivers are not allowed under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i)?

Do you understand the difference between legislative branch and the executive branch?

i do.

but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the notice issued by the secretaries of state and homeland security are within the bounds of the law.

either the power to make such waivers was granted to them in the INA, specifically Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) or it wasn't. the INA is law - it was passed by congress and signed by the president.

the notice and the section of the INA have been posted.

do you have any reason to claim that the waivers granted in the notice are not permitted under the law?

 

[candycorn]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

(B) (i) 20b/ 20c/ The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary's sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such wa iver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may b e extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a d etermination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not ex ercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

When your source is Infowars...you forego any semblance of being a serious commentator.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I thought Obama said he was going to use the power of the dictatorial pen to make life better for AMERICANS? NOT TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

politicalchic, your op is a mess. before you go handing out english lessons perhaps you should learn to post coherently and how to attribute quotes to their source.

that said, the majority of your post seems to be from an article on a conservative website that quotes a conservative organization. not exactly unbiased.

here is the published notice in the federal register
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/05/2014-02357/exercise-of-authority-under-section-212d3bi-of-the-immigration-and-nationality-act

and here's a link to Michael Chertoff using the same powers in 2007.
ilink | USCIS

and finally a link and quote of the pertinent part of the INA that grants the power to make such a change

ilink | USCIS

so, do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

When your source is Infowars...you forego any semblance of being a serious commentator.

How about simply stating whether it is correct or not?




BTW....

"Sandra Fluke: Rush Limbaugh Did Me a 'Favor' by Calling Me 'Slut'"

Sandra Fluke: Rush Limbaugh Did Me a 'Favor' by Calling Me 'Slut'


"Can't afford birth control," the post read. "Paid $1740 filing fee to run for Congress."
The Maine GOP?s latest insult to women | Mike Tipping

 

[ogibillm]

I thought Obama said he was going to use the power of the dictatorial pen to make life better for AMERICANS? NOT TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS.

i think 'sympathizers' is a bit strong for these exemptions.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So many Americans can't find work so why the **** is immigration even a damn issue?

 

[ogibillm]

1. "The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller."
» Obama allows immigrants with ?limited? terror contact into U.S. Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




2. "...do you have anything other than your biased source to back up your claim that this is an abuse of powers, illegal, unconstitutional, or in any way improper?"

Yup.

The United States Constitution....articles 1 and 2.

When your source is Infowars...you forego any semblance of being a serious commentator.

How about simply stating whether it is correct or not?




BTW....

"Sandra Fluke: Rush Limbaugh Did Me a 'Favor' by Calling Me 'Slut'"

Sandra Fluke: Rush Limbaugh Did Me a 'Favor' by Calling Me 'Slut'


"Can't afford birth control," the post read. "Paid $1740 filing fee to run for Congress."
The Maine GOP?s latest insult to women | Mike Tipping

it's incorrect. i've posted evidence to that. now please provide the evidence you have for calling the notice illegal and uncostitutional - or how about just showing that it was an executive order signed by the president as you claimed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

that's not being disputed and you're not being honest by pretending it is.

is the INA, a law passed by congress and signed by the president, constitutional? if it is, as it must be assumed until it is found otherwise in the courts, then the waivers are in accordance with the powers granted by the law.

or do you have any evidence to suggest that the waivers are not allowed under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i)?

Do you understand the difference between legislative branch and the executive branch?

i do.

but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the notice issued by the secretaries of state and homeland security are within the bounds of the law.

either the power to make such waivers was granted to them in the INA, specifically Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) or it wasn't. the INA is law - it was passed by congress and signed by the president.

the notice and the section of the INA have been posted.

do you have any reason to claim that the waivers granted in the notice are not permitted under the law?

Why do you perseverate?

The Constitution separates the functions of an executive, seeing that a law is carried out, from the function of specifying what is in a law.

Any regulation that blurs those functions is incorrectly passed.


Get it now?

 

[ogibillm]

Do you understand the difference between legislative branch and the executive branch?

i do.

but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the notice issued by the secretaries of state and homeland security are within the bounds of the law.

either the power to make such waivers was granted to them in the INA, specifically Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) or it wasn't. the INA is law - it was passed by congress and signed by the president.

the notice and the section of the INA have been posted.

do you have any reason to claim that the waivers granted in the notice are not permitted under the law?

Why do you perseverate?

The Constitution separates the functions of an executive, seeing that a law is carried out, from the function of specifying what is in a law.

Any regulation that blurs those functions is incorrectly passed.


Get it now?

yes. i get it. you're issue isn't with the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of homeland security. your issue is that your view of what should be does not match up with what is.

here's reality for you - laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere. you can have your purist, misguided ideology. that's fine. but here in the real world that's not how it works.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i do.

but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the notice issued by the secretaries of state and homeland security are within the bounds of the law.

either the power to make such waivers was granted to them in the INA, specifically Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) or it wasn't. the INA is law - it was passed by congress and signed by the president.

the notice and the section of the INA have been posted.

do you have any reason to claim that the waivers granted in the notice are not permitted under the law?

Why do you perseverate?

The Constitution separates the functions of an executive, seeing that a law is carried out, from the function of specifying what is in a law.

Any regulation that blurs those functions is incorrectly passed.


Get it now?

yes. i get it. you're issue isn't with the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of homeland security. your issue is that your view of what should be does not match up with what is.

here's reality for you - laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere. you can have your purist, misguided ideology. that's fine. but here in the real world that's not how it works.

".... laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere."


I note that you avoided using the work "correct."

 

[ogibillm]

Why do you perseverate?

The Constitution separates the functions of an executive, seeing that a law is carried out, from the function of specifying what is in a law.

Any regulation that blurs those functions is incorrectly passed.


Get it now?

yes. i get it. you're issue isn't with the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of homeland security. your issue is that your view of what should be does not match up with what is.

here's reality for you - laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere. you can have your purist, misguided ideology. that's fine. but here in the real world that's not how it works.

".... laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere."


I note that you avoided using the work "correct."

until the courts say otherwise they are correct and constitutional. your opinion or mine doesn't change that.

here is an opinion on congressional delegation that does matter though

Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.

 

[ogibillm]

so what's the lesson here?

first, do some research. even a cursory google search shows that there is no executive order. that should at least let you know that there are issues with your source.

and speaking of sources, choose something reputable. go to the original if possible. spend the extra time corroborating with an unbiased sourced what you've found on your favorite yellow journalism site.

third, if you're going to make wild claims of illegal acts and unconstitutionality be prepared to back them up with facts. be able to tell us why you make that claim, and why examples of similar actions are in fact not applicable. put yourself in the position to make an argument other than a vague 'because the constitution!'

fourth, please post coherently. just because you believe you've laid your argument out logically by randomly inserting numbers and ellipses doesn't mean that the rest of us can follow your particular train of thought. give us your opinion, in your own words, with the evidence clearly laid out to support it. source your quotes and articles and group them together in a logical fashion.

and finally, we learned that when politicalchic is completely and utterly destroyed she runs away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yes. i get it. you're issue isn't with the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of homeland security. your issue is that your view of what should be does not match up with what is.

here's reality for you - laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere. you can have your purist, misguided ideology. that's fine. but here in the real world that's not how it works.

".... laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere."


I note that you avoided using the work "correct."

until the courts say otherwise they are correct and constitutional. your opinion or mine doesn't change that.

here is an opinion on congressional delegation that does matter though

Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.

"until the courts say otherwise they are correct and constitutional. your opinion or mine doesn't change that."

You are misusing the term "correct."



The Constitution has, as you know, as specific method to allow for its change.

If the executive branch is to be allowed to essentially write the laws, or to re-write existing laws, the only correct was to authorize this is the amendment process.


I'm not denying that it is done, merely spotlighting the use of speed in place of rectitude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so what's the lesson here?

first, do some research. even a cursory google search shows that there is no executive order. that should at least let you know that there are issues with your source.

and speaking of sources, choose something reputable. go to the original if possible. spend the extra time corroborating with an unbiased sourced what you've found on your favorite yellow journalism site.

third, if you're going to make wild claims of illegal acts and unconstitutionality be prepared to back them up with facts. be able to tell us why you make that claim, and why examples of similar actions are in fact not applicable. put yourself in the position to make an argument other than a vague 'because the constitution!'

fourth, please post coherently. just because you believe you've laid your argument out logically by randomly inserting numbers and ellipses doesn't mean that the rest of us can follow your particular train of thought. give us your opinion, in your own words, with the evidence clearly laid out to support it. source your quotes and articles and group them together in a logical fashion.

and finally, we learned that when politicalchic is completely and utterly destroyed she runs away.

Wrong again:


"Obama admin unilaterally changes law to allow immigrants with ‘limited’ terror contact into US"

Read more: Obama admin changes immigration law, allows immigrants who supported terrorists into US | The Daily Caller

 

[ogibillm]

".... laws exist that grant the executive authorities like this. they are real and they aren't going anywhere."


I note that you avoided using the work "correct."

until the courts say otherwise they are correct and constitutional. your opinion or mine doesn't change that.

here is an opinion on congressional delegation that does matter though

Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.

"until the courts say otherwise they are correct and constitutional. your opinion or mine doesn't change that."

You are misusing the term "correct."



The Constitution has, as you know, as specific method to allow for its change.

If the executive branch is to be allowed to essentially write the laws, or to re-write existing laws, the only correct was to authorize this is the amendment process.


I'm not denying that it is done, merely spotlighting the use of speed in place of rectitude.

what you're doing is displaying ignorance. you started out claiming that this was an executive order. it was not. you also claimed that it changed the law, it does not. you wanted us to believe that it was illegal and unconstitutional. the letter of the law has been followed and the supreme court has ruled that such delegation is in fact constitutional.

you are incorrect. there are no two ways about it.

you can continue to be incorrect or you can realize your errors. your choice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so what's the lesson here?

first, do some research. even a cursory google search shows that there is no executive order. that should at least let you know that there are issues with your source.

and speaking of sources, choose something reputable. go to the original if possible. spend the extra time corroborating with an unbiased sourced what you've found on your favorite yellow journalism site.

third, if you're going to make wild claims of illegal acts and unconstitutionality be prepared to back them up with facts. be able to tell us why you make that claim, and why examples of similar actions are in fact not applicable. put yourself in the position to make an argument other than a vague 'because the constitution!'

fourth, please post coherently. just because you believe you've laid your argument out logically by randomly inserting numbers and ellipses doesn't mean that the rest of us can follow your particular train of thought. give us your opinion, in your own words, with the evidence clearly laid out to support it. source your quotes and articles and group them together in a logical fashion.

and finally, we learned that when politicalchic is completely and utterly destroyed she runs away.

And still again:


"Without seeking congressional approval, the Obama administration has relaxed immigration rules to allow individuals with “limited” terrorist contacts to enter the United States.

The change was published Wednesday in the Federal Register by the departments of State and Homeland Security, according to The Daily Caller."
In end-run around Congress, administration allows asylum for immigrants with limited terror contact - BizPac Review

 

[ogibillm]

so what's the lesson here?

first, do some research. even a cursory google search shows that there is no executive order. that should at least let you know that there are issues with your source.

and speaking of sources, choose something reputable. go to the original if possible. spend the extra time corroborating with an unbiased sourced what you've found on your favorite yellow journalism site.

third, if you're going to make wild claims of illegal acts and unconstitutionality be prepared to back them up with facts. be able to tell us why you make that claim, and why examples of similar actions are in fact not applicable. put yourself in the position to make an argument other than a vague 'because the constitution!'

fourth, please post coherently. just because you believe you've laid your argument out logically by randomly inserting numbers and ellipses doesn't mean that the rest of us can follow your particular train of thought. give us your opinion, in your own words, with the evidence clearly laid out to support it. source your quotes and articles and group them together in a logical fashion.

and finally, we learned that when politicalchic is completely and utterly destroyed she runs away.

And still again:


"Without seeking congressional approval, the Obama administration has relaxed immigration rules to allow individuals with “limited” terrorist contacts to enter the United States.

The change was published Wednesday in the Federal Register by the departments of State and Homeland Security, according to The Daily Caller."
In end-run around Congress, administration allows asylum for immigrants with limited terror contact - BizPac Review

you do understand that this is neither refutation of my evidence or presentation of your own, right?

just because someone puts a headline on their webpage doesn't make it true. i've presented you with the notice and the section of the INA that grants the power to make such changes in policy to the secretaries of state and homeland security. i've shown where such changes have been made before using the same powers - and i've shown that the supreme court has found such delegation not only constitutional but necessary.

do you have any evidence to suggest that this particular change is somehow different and therefore illegal and unconstitutional? do you offer anything other than articles that make the same accusations you do without any reasoning behind them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

so what's the lesson here?

first, do some research. even a cursory google search shows that there is no executive order. that should at least let you know that there are issues with your source.

and speaking of sources, choose something reputable. go to the original if possible. spend the extra time corroborating with an unbiased sourced what you've found on your favorite yellow journalism site.

third, if you're going to make wild claims of illegal acts and unconstitutionality be prepared to back them up with facts. be able to tell us why you make that claim, and why examples of similar actions are in fact not applicable. put yourself in the position to make an argument other than a vague 'because the constitution!'

fourth, please post coherently. just because you believe you've laid your argument out logically by randomly inserting numbers and ellipses doesn't mean that the rest of us can follow your particular train of thought. give us your opinion, in your own words, with the evidence clearly laid out to support it. source your quotes and articles and group them together in a logical fashion.

and finally, we learned that when politicalchic is completely and utterly destroyed she runs away.

And still again:


"Without seeking congressional approval, the Obama administration has relaxed immigration rules to allow individuals with “limited” terrorist contacts to enter the United States.

The change was published Wednesday in the Federal Register by the departments of State and Homeland Security, according to The Daily Caller."
In end-run around Congress, administration allows asylum for immigrants with limited terror contact - BizPac Review

you do understand that this is neither refutation of my evidence or presentation of your own, right?

just because someone puts a headline on their webpage doesn't make it true. i've presented you with the notice and the section of the INA that grants the power to make such changes in policy to the secretaries of state and homeland security. i've shown where such changes have been made before using the same powers - and i've shown that the supreme court has found such delegation not only constitutional but necessary.

do you have any evidence to suggest that this particular change is somehow different and therefore illegal and unconstitutional? do you offer anything other than articles that make the same accusations you do without any reasoning behind them?

Now....when I prove it.....should I await your apology?

 

[ogibillm]

And still again:


"Without seeking congressional approval, the Obama administration has relaxed immigration rules to allow individuals with “limited” terrorist contacts to enter the United States.

The change was published Wednesday in the Federal Register by the departments of State and Homeland Security, according to The Daily Caller."
In end-run around Congress, administration allows asylum for immigrants with limited terror contact - BizPac Review

you do understand that this is neither refutation of my evidence or presentation of your own, right?

just because someone puts a headline on their webpage doesn't make it true. i've presented you with the notice and the section of the INA that grants the power to make such changes in policy to the secretaries of state and homeland security. i've shown where such changes have been made before using the same powers - and i've shown that the supreme court has found such delegation not only constitutional but necessary.

do you have any evidence to suggest that this particular change is somehow different and therefore illegal and unconstitutional? do you offer anything other than articles that make the same accusations you do without any reasoning behind them?

Now....when I prove it.....should I await your apology?

you prove it and i'll be happy to admit i was wrong.

however, what i believe will happen is one of two things - you'll link to an article that links back to the daily caller that says only what you've been saying from the beginning and offers no reasoning or evidence, or you'll post articles I and II of the constitution - neither of which are proof.

so yeah, if you can prove it by all means please do.