Why have laws?

[TemplarKormac]

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to

And I have every right to tell you your position is wildly inconsistent if you're lamenting about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation.

Again, its the law that is preventing these children from being immediately deported. Obama is following the law.

So what's the problem?

No he is not.

Remarks by the President on Immigration | The White House

"His own regulation"? He cannot 'enact his own regulations.' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can. I am asking him to respect the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution!

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking. Yes, that 'stuff' does go on down there, believe it or not. And I take back what I said about repealing it. Repealing it would make it easier to traffic innocent children into child labor camps... or even worse, prostitution.

My problem is with you lying through your teeth.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Besides, that law deals with trying to prohibit human trafficking. You do know that stuff goes on down there, don't you?

'Stuff', huh? Way to break out the technical jargon.

Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster.

Where then, is your problem? Its a simple question. And in a hour and half a dozen posts, one you've starkly refused to answer.

I just looked up the law, you buffoon. It says nothing about deportations. In fact they have to see a judge to determine if they were or are victims of human trafficking.

Please learn to read and study the law. I love how you two tried to spin the law into something it wasn't. Lucking I can do research on the fly.

Read.

President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking

Yes. They have to see a judge to determine if they were or are victims of human trafficking - and that has to happen before they can be deported.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to

And I have every right to tell you your position is wildly inconsistent if you're lamenting about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation.

Again, its the law that is preventing these children from being immediately deported. Obama is following the law.

So what's the problem?

No he is not.

Remarks by the President on Immigration | The White House

"His own regulation"? He cannot 'enact his own regulations.' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can. I am asking him to respect the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution!

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking. Yes, that 'stuff' does go on down there, believe it or not. And I take back what I said about repealing it. Repealing it would make it easier to traffic innocent children into child labor camps... or even worse, prostitution.

My problem is with you lying through your teeth.

He's not "lying" about anything.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perhaps you should wait and see if he actually does anything before getting outraged.

Saying and doing are two different things.

That is a cop out, Doc.

It's not.

Getting outraged about rhetoric is stupid. Only actions matter.

He's taken a lot of them. His policy decisions speak for themselves, Doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is a cop out, Doc.

It's not.

Getting outraged about rhetoric is stupid. Only actions matter.

He's taken a lot of them. His policy decisions speak for themselves, Doc.

What decisions are you referring to?

 

[Skylar]

Besides, that law deals with trying to prohibit human trafficking. You do know that stuff goes on down there, don't you?

'Stuff', huh? Way to break out the technical jargon.

Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster.

Where then, is your problem? Its a simple question. And in a hour and half a dozen posts, one you've starkly refused to answer.

I just looked up the law, you buffoon. It says nothing about deportations. In fact they have to see a judge to determine if they were or are victims of human trafficking.

Please learn to read and study the law. I love how you two tried to spin the law into something it wasn't. Lucking I can do research on the fly.

Read.

President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking

Tisk, tisk....do try and remain civil.

You just read the law, huh? All 49 pages of it, in the few minutes between your latest posts? Um, no. You just looked up a press release. That's not the law.

Here's the full text of the law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ457/pdf/PLAW-110publ457.pdf

I'm still reading it. Perhaps you'd like to start. Take careful note of the phrase "return such child to the child’s country of nationality or country of last habitual residence."

 

[Esmeralda]

Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?

What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?

Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.

As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.

Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.

Here's that adolescent vision of the world rearing it's tiny, undeveloped brain. This can't be a serious question. It's embedded in partisanship and childishness and based on ignorance.

"He is so stupid you can't trust him with an idea." - John Steinbeck

 

[TemplarKormac]

And I have every right to tell you your position is wildly inconsistent if you're lamenting about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation.

Again, its the law that is preventing these children from being immediately deported. Obama is following the law.

So what's the problem?

No he is not.

Remarks by the President on Immigration | The White House

"His own regulation"? He cannot 'enact his own regulations.' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can. I am asking him to respect the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution!

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking. Yes, that 'stuff' does go on down there, believe it or not. And I take back what I said about repealing it. Repealing it would make it easier to traffic innocent children into child labor camps... or even worse, prostitution.

My problem is with you lying through your teeth.

He's not "lying" about anything.

Prove he is not. You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US. It deals with Human Trafficking, it is meant to protect children from human smugglers. So, how was that law a bad thing?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No he is not.

Remarks by the President on Immigration | The White House

"His own regulation"? He cannot 'enact his own regulations.' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can. I am asking him to respect the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution!

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking. Yes, that 'stuff' does go on down there, believe it or not. And I take back what I said about repealing it. Repealing it would make it easier to traffic innocent children into child labor camps... or even worse, prostitution.

My problem is with you lying through your teeth.

He's not "lying" about anything.

Prove he is not. You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US. It deals with Human Trafficking, it is meant to protect children from human smugglers. So, how was that law a bad thing?

It's not a "bad thing" - but like many laws, it has had unintended consequences.

That law insists that any unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries must go before a judge to find whether or not they have been involved in human trafficking - and that must occur before the children can be deported back to their country of origin.

The Wilberforce Act doesn't "prevent" the deportation of children, it just makes it take a lot longer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

'Stuff', huh? Way to break out the technical jargon.

Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster.

Where then, is your problem? Its a simple question. And in a hour and half a dozen posts, one you've starkly refused to answer.

I just looked up the law, you buffoon. It says nothing about deportations. In fact they have to see a judge to determine if they were or are victims of human trafficking.

Please learn to read and study the law. I love how you two tried to spin the law into something it wasn't. Lucking I can do research on the fly.

Read.

President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking

Tisk, tisk....do try and remain civil.

You just read the law, huh? All 49 pages of it, in the few minutes between your latest posts? Um, no. You just looked up a press release. That's not the law.

Here's the full text of the law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ457/pdf/PLAW-110publ457.pdf

I'm still reading it. Perhaps you'd like to start. Take careful note of the phrase "return such child to the child’s country of nationality or country of last habitual residence."

Um no. I read the section specifically relating to human trafficking and unaccompanied minors. You don't need to read the entire law to cite a specific part of it. Okay?

It is 8 U.S.C. §1232. Which is not 49 pages long.

They must undergo screenings within 48 hours of being taken in. If their status cannot be determined they are referred to HHS.

 

[Skylar]

And I have every right to tell you your position is wildly inconsistent if you're lamenting about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation.

Again, its the law that is preventing these children from being immediately deported. Obama is following the law.

So what's the problem?

No he is not.

Remarks by the President on Immigration | The White House

"His own regulation"? He cannot 'enact his own regulations.' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can. I am asking him to respect the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution!

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking. Yes, that 'stuff' does go on down there, believe it or not. And I take back what I said about repealing it. Repealing it would make it easier to traffic innocent children into child labor camps... or even worse, prostitution.

My problem is with you lying through your teeth.

He's not "lying" about anything.

Nope.

And the law I'm talking about is immediately relevant. As its the law that requires that a child from an non-continguous country see a judge before they can be deported.

And the reason we have so many unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries in custody, is because Obama is following that law.

Which is what you claim he's supposed to do. So, for the third time: what is your problem with Obama's approach to this situation?

Even you don't know. You don't seem to disagree with anything Obama's doing in regards to these children. Nor can you cite any violation of the law committed by Obama regarding them.

So its just general belly aching, huh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

He's not "lying" about anything.

Prove he is not. You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US. It deals with Human Trafficking, it is meant to protect children from human smugglers. So, how was that law a bad thing?

It's not a "bad thing" - but like many laws, it has had unintended consequences.

That law insists that any unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries must go before a judge to find whether or not they have been involved in human trafficking - and that must occur before the children can be deported back to their country of origin.

The Wilberforce Act doesn't "prevent" the deportation of children, it just makes it take a lot longer.

The law was passed unanimously by both houses.

So, have Congress amend the law to speed up the process. If Obama convinces them to, it will be one thing he has done correctly in his term. I take his claims with a grain of salt. With that said, Congress has gotten tired of him working around them. Suddenly he is asking them for help? After he has flouted them so many times before? Given his stated hatred of congressional inaction, I am afraid he will work around them. So forgive me if I am not too overly confident about his plea to Congress. He strikes me as an impatient man.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No he is not.

Remarks by the President on Immigration | The White House

"His own regulation"? He cannot 'enact his own regulations.' Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can. I am asking him to respect the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution!

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking. Yes, that 'stuff' does go on down there, believe it or not. And I take back what I said about repealing it. Repealing it would make it easier to traffic innocent children into child labor camps... or even worse, prostitution.

My problem is with you lying through your teeth.

He's not "lying" about anything.

Nope.

And the law I'm talking about is immediately relevant. As its the law that requires that a child from an non-continguous country see a judge before they can be deported.

And the reason we have so many unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries in custody, is because Obama is following that law.

Which is what you claim he's supposed to do. So, for the third time: what is your problem with Obama's approach to this situation?

Even you don't know. You don't seem to disagree with anything Obama's doing in regards to these children. Nor can you cite any violation of the law committed by Obama regarding them.

So its just general belly aching, huh?

Weren't you just lecturing me about being 'civil'? Or was that just general bellyaching? I've already caught both of you trying to say this "law Bush Passed" is the reason why we have this problem. That is disingenuous. Essentially blaming him for this, when the law was passed unanimously. Yeah, you were lying alright. Such insinuations were ham fisted and you know it. Bush had no ulterior motive in passing that law. It was very well intentioned.

Spare me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what is my approach to Obama's approach to this law? He has a history of ignoring the Constitution. He's a so called 'constitutional professor' yet he cannot for the life of him adhere to it. His approach is devious, unlawful.

I will be surprised frankly if he can manage to stay on his leash just once. Now would be a good place for him to begin.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's not "lying" about anything.

Nope.

And the law I'm talking about is immediately relevant. As its the law that requires that a child from an non-continguous country see a judge before they can be deported.

And the reason we have so many unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries in custody, is because Obama is following that law.

Which is what you claim he's supposed to do. So, for the third time: what is your problem with Obama's approach to this situation?

Even you don't know. You don't seem to disagree with anything Obama's doing in regards to these children. Nor can you cite any violation of the law committed by Obama regarding them.

So its just general belly aching, huh?

Weren't you just lecturing me about being 'civil'? Or was that just general bellyaching? I've already caught both of you trying to say this "law Bush Passed" is the reason why we have this problem. That is disingenuous. Essentially blaming him for this, when the law was passed unanimously. Yeah, you were lying alright. Such insinuations were ham fisted and you know it. Bush had no ulterior motive in passing that law. It was very well intentioned.

Spare me.

It's no more "disingenuous" than your OP blaming Obama for everything was. You're reading way too much into the mention of Bush.

No one has come close to implying that the law itself is somehow "bad", or that Bush had any "ulterior motives". That came from your imagination, not anything we said.

I mentioned that Bush passed it due to the inevitable claims of "See! It's still Obama's fault" that would have happened had Obama been the one to sign it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not.

Getting outraged about rhetoric is stupid. Only actions matter.

He's taken a lot of them. His policy decisions speak for themselves, Doc.

What decisions are you referring to?

Are you kidding? Can you not look them up?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's taken a lot of them. His policy decisions speak for themselves, Doc.

What decisions are you referring to?

Are you kidding? Can you not look them up?

What should I "look up"?

 

[Skylar]

Um no. I read the section specifically relating to human trafficking and unaccompanied minors.

Not from the press release you offered us. As it has no specific citations related to human trafficking.

President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking

So did you give us the wrong source.....or did you simply not read the press release before posting a link to it?

You don't need to read the entire law to cite a specific part of it. Okay?

The problem being....the press release you offered us doesn't include the 'specific part' you're alluding to, does it? Now given that you've already read the 'specific part', it will be remarkably easy for you to show it to us. To quote it, even.....with sources.

And if you haven't even read your press release, you'll give us excuses why you can't.

Pick one.

It is 8 U.S.C. §1232. Which is not 49 pages long.

Here's 8 U.S.C. §1232:

8 U.S. Code § 1232 - Enhancing efforts to combat the trafficking of children | LII / Legal Information Institute

Show us your 'specific part'. Me, I'm still reading. Its 3600 words long. You must be able to read *really* fast.

They must undergo screenings within 48 hours of being taken in. If their status cannot be determined they are referred to HHS.

So wait....now you're claiming that the law *does* have something to do with these chidlren? Because just a post or two ago you said this:

Again, the law you are talking about has nothing to do with this situation. It has more to do with Human Trafficking.

Templar Kormac

Now you're claiming to paraphrase the portion of that very law that is preventing these children from being returned to their countries as quickly as children from contiguous countries.

What a difference an hour makes, eh?

You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US.

Reading really isn't your bag, is it? Try again, this time reading for comprehension. I'll even help you by bolding your blunder:

"Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster."

Skylar

We both know you've seen it as you quoted it.

I just caught you in an explicit, demonstrable lie. Or a demonstration that you don't bother to read what you're replying to.

Neither is particularly flattering. Pick which.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope.

And the law I'm talking about is immediately relevant. As its the law that requires that a child from an non-continguous country see a judge before they can be deported.

And the reason we have so many unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries in custody, is because Obama is following that law.

Which is what you claim he's supposed to do. So, for the third time: what is your problem with Obama's approach to this situation?

Even you don't know. You don't seem to disagree with anything Obama's doing in regards to these children. Nor can you cite any violation of the law committed by Obama regarding them.

So its just general belly aching, huh?

Weren't you just lecturing me about being 'civil'? Or was that just general bellyaching? I've already caught both of you trying to say this "law Bush Passed" is the reason why we have this problem. That is disingenuous. Essentially blaming him for this, when the law was passed unanimously. Yeah, you were lying alright. Such insinuations were ham fisted and you know it. Bush had no ulterior motive in passing that law. It was very well intentioned.

Spare me.

It's no more "disingenuous" than your OP blaming Obama for everything was. You're reading way too much into the mention of Bush.

No one has come close to implying that the law itself is somehow "bad", or that Bush had any "ulterior motives". That came from your imagination, not anything we said.

I mentioned that Bush passed it due to the inevitable claims of "See! It's still Obama's fault" that would have happened had Obama been the one to sign it.

The problem here is that it is his fault. He has made policy decisions that have made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay here. And then suddenly, I have you defaulting to a law Bush passed. Really? So, your mention of Bush was a deflection. Obama's actions in the here and now have signaled to many abroad that they can just waltz in here freely without fearing deportation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Um no. I read the section specifically relating to human trafficking and unaccompanied minors.

Not from the press release you offered us. As it has no specific citations related to human trafficking.

President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking

So did you give us the wrong source.....or did you simply not read the press release before posting a link to it?

You don't need to read the entire law to cite a specific part of it. Okay?

The problem being....the press release you offered us doesn't include the 'specific part' you're alluding to, does it? Now given that you've already read the 'specific part', it will be remarkably easy for you to show it to us. To quote it, even.....with sources.

And if you haven't even read your press release, you'll give us excuses why you can't.

Pick one.



Here's 8 U.S.C. §1232:

8 U.S. Code § 1232 - Enhancing efforts to combat the trafficking of children | LII / Legal Information Institute

Show us your 'specific part'. Me, I'm still reading. Its 3600 words long. You must be able to read *really* fast.



So wait....now you're claiming that the law *does* have something to do with these chidlren? Because just a post or two ago you said this:



Now you're claiming to paraphrase the portion of that very law that is preventing these children from being returned to their countries as quickly as children from contiguous countries.

What a difference an hour makes, eh?

You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US.

Reading really isn't your bag, is it? Try again, this time reading for comprehension. I'll even help you by bolding your blunder:

"Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster."

Skylar

We both know you've seen it as you quoted it.

I just caught you in an explicit, demonstrable lie. Or a demonstration that you don't bother to read what you're replying to.

Neither is particularly flattering. Pick which.

Sure, it took me all of 15 minutes to read. I am a practiced speed reader. So stick to your argument, not your ad hominem. The other problem here is that these children are from contiguous and non contiguous countries. So, where was my lie? They come from Mexico (a contiguous country to the US), plus Honduras and other Central American countries (non contiguous countries.)

And you tell me I don't read what I respond to? You're going to mince words with me? Brilliant!