So what if Trump concedes...and agrees to "fix" DACA? What will the "base" think?

[Slade3200]

If Trump gets the Dreamer's Act passed, with funding for more security and a border wall, it will be a big win.

The base will never go for a quick pathway to citizenship without including a secured border that controld the flow of immigrants entering this country from Mexico. If he does what President Reagan did, his chances of Republicans supporting his reelection are over.

Truth is any quick pathway to citizenship will only JUSTIFY sneaking across the border, and is a spit in the face to any immigrant who follows the rule of law from overseas to become a citizen.

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If Trump gets the Dreamer's Act passed, with funding for more security and a border wall, it will be a big win.

The base will never go for a quick pathway to citizenship without including a secured border that controld the flow of immigrants entering this country from Mexico. If he does what President Reagan did, his chances of Republicans supporting his reelection are over.

Truth is any quick pathway to citizenship will only JUSTIFY sneaking across the border, and is a spit in the face to any immigrant who follows the rule of law from overseas to become a citizen.

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Slippery slope for the Trump admin...no?
I'm pretty sure the quality folks that elected him want nothing to do with nutless bipartisanship. I'm thinking he'll phuck himself hard if he pulls some Reagan shit right now.
Your thoughts?

He gave Congress 6 months to shit or get off the pot, dufus.

So stop blathering and tell Pelosi to get off her fat ass and get legislation passed.

You're a hoot.

The Repubs have been in power for for 2 1/2 years and have done nothing. Not even Pelosi can change that.

Yet all this grandstanding by Democrats in front of the cameras babbling about statues of dead people and old flags and not a peep of concern for the children.

Obama said his EO was a temporary stopgap. And Democrats dropped the ball to get the job done.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why would a "fix" for DACA be considered a concession for Trump? President Trump is the ubiquitous deal maker while Hussein was an obtuse oaf.

Well, I suppose "fix" is the trivial word...without definition.
What "fix" will appease the "base" and keep them from calling for his head?

As long as they do a 'touchback' I think 90% would be OK with it.

I am OK with it as long as they pay all back taxes (audited) and fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay the fees.

 

[Slade3200]

If Trump gets the Dreamer's Act passed, with funding for more security and a border wall, it will be a big win.

The base will never go for a quick pathway to citizenship without including a secured border that controld the flow of immigrants entering this country from Mexico. If he does what President Reagan did, his chances of Republicans supporting his reelection are over.

Truth is any quick pathway to citizenship will only JUSTIFY sneaking across the border, and is a spit in the face to any immigrant who follows the rule of law from overseas to become a citizen.

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

 

[BrokeLoser]

If Trump gets the Dreamer's Act passed, with funding for more security and a border wall, it will be a big win.

The base will never go for a quick pathway to citizenship without including a secured border that controld the flow of immigrants entering this country from Mexico. If he does what President Reagan did, his chances of Republicans supporting his reelection are over.

Truth is any quick pathway to citizenship will only JUSTIFY sneaking across the border, and is a spit in the face to any immigrant who follows the rule of law from overseas to become a citizen.

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

What you've described is Constitutional Overreach and a NOT so clever work-around of our Constitution. It's why Democrats got obliterated and have become damn-near irrelevant in D.C.

 

[g5000]

The base won't care - Trump's #1 rule for governing

TRVTH

 

[g5000]

When Obama gave the Dreamers legal status to stay here, the pseudocons called it amnesty.

You will never ever ever hear them call it that when Trump signs the amnesty bill.

"Yeahbut we won!"

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The base will never go for a quick pathway to citizenship without including a secured border that controld the flow of immigrants entering this country from Mexico. If he does what President Reagan did, his chances of Republicans supporting his reelection are over.

Truth is any quick pathway to citizenship will only JUSTIFY sneaking across the border, and is a spit in the face to any immigrant who follows the rule of law from overseas to become a citizen.

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

 

[Slade3200]

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

 

[busybee01]

If Trump gets the Dreamer's Act passed, with funding for more security and a border wall, it will be a big win.

The base will never go for a quick pathway to citizenship without including a secured border that controld the flow of immigrants entering this country from Mexico. If he does what President Reagan did, his chances of Republicans supporting his reelection are over.

Truth is any quick pathway to citizenship will only JUSTIFY sneaking across the border, and is a spit in the face to any immigrant who follows the rule of law from overseas to become a citizen.

Who is talking about a "quick pathway to citizenship"?? The Dream Act is calling for resident and legal status for DACA recipients.
Border security funding, something that has been voted on in a bipartisan manner for years, shouldn't be a problem to include with the dream act. The Wall... not so much. Trump said today that he isn't going after Wall funding with this deal.

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

The President has complete discretion in who gets deported. Obama was within his rights to say that he would not deport DREAMers. That is the same discretion Trump is using in not deporting DREAMers. This discretion has been upheld by the courts. While DACA may have been technically unconstitutional, Obama's implementation of it was not.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

First Pesident Obama can not change immigration policy by creating DACA, only the legislative branch has the authority under the Constitution to enact changes in our immigration laws. DACA is a program whereby children were brought here through their parents actions in entering this country illegally. These children are not legal citizens who qualify for benefits, and "proper" legislation that allows them to attain citizenship should not "justify" their parents actions nor keep their parents from deportation. They broke the law, and liberal democrats in particular have shown no respect for following our current Federal immigration laws by defending sanctuary cities. There is only one branch of government granted by our Constitution to allow a change of Federal immigration policy, no other branch other than the legislative has been given the authority to change it. Our nation's immigration system needs to be equal to ALL foreign immigrants, without a quick path to citizenship favoring one group of illegals.

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

 

[Slade3200]

DACA is a priority directive, not a law. It does not provide them with benefits, citizenship, or even legal status. It simply deferred them from deportation for 2 year intervals as long as they didn't commit any crimes and allowed them to apply for a work authorization permit. The president does have the authority to give our immigration authorities priority directives does he not?

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

 

[ColonelAngus]

As long as it's not HRC as POTUS, I don't care if Donald does nothing but have sex with his wife in the Oval Office for 8 years.

 

[my2¢]

I'm not a Trump supporter so I won't talk for the base. Good question though, I noticed before the election folks talked more about his independence from special interest and a trust in him to do what's right for America more than in terms of a conservative agenda.

Which leads me to the case of it being "a slippery slope for Trump's administration". I don't see it, I don't believe he sees things in terms of ideology and instead will govern on basis of what he himself believes. Plus the guy has billions and most likely people will take him more seriously as an ex-president in 4 years than they take him now. Some of these folks may even have some guilt about their mindless following of the media's attack on him.

 

[Vastator]

Slippery slope for the Trump admin...no?
I'm pretty sure the quality folks that elected him want nothing to do with nutless bipartisanship. I'm thinking he'll phuck himself hard if he pulls some Reagan shit right now.
Your thoughts?

I think the base will have to accept that we couldn't get it all in one go. Trump did nearly promise the world; and while we will take all we can get in regard to the Agenda Trump was voted in on... We will simply have to embrace the next candidate who will move the ball closer to the goal line. I don't think any of us truly believed he could get every bit of it done. However what he has done; is shown that there is broad support for the agenda that got him elected. I'm quite eager to see what future politicians emerge, now emboldened by Trumps brave first steps.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The legislative is the only branch that can change our immigration policy with how federal immigration laws are to be followed. What President Obama did was unconstitutional. Show me where the Constitution dictates under Articke II that the executive branch has authority to change the enforcement of existing laws and how they are to be followed.

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But 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. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

 

[Slade3200]

The Executive didn't change any laws with DACA, they gave an enforcement directive, which set priorities and criteria to which the enforcement agencies need to follow. This has been around for a while now. Trump is using it as well to keep the focus of deportations on criminals and to wind down DACA. Do you think that is illegal as well?

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But 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. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But 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. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Why do you think President Obama felt the need to iestabkish an executive order on a group of individuals who are classified as illegal and not citizens? When you prevent illegals, meaning those who are not by definition of law as American citizens, and you use executive order to prevent their deportation, YOU ARE in fact changing the enforcement of our current legislative law regarding deportation of non-cittizens. Seriously Slafe, if there was no concern for these young immigrants being deported under the law, an executive order to keep them in the country wouldn't be necessary. The law regarding our Feseral Immigration is really quite clear about this.

President Trump handed DACA and the immigration issue as a whole to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH where it belongs.

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But 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. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Come on man...how many times are we gonna do this?
What you've described is Constitutional Overreach and a NOT so clever work-around of our Constitution. It's why Democrats got obliterated and have become damn-near irrelevant in D.C.
See, the executive branch is suppose to fulfill the will of the people by executing the laws the people have asked congress to pass.
Why / how do you have such trouble with this?