Why have laws?

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Why........the ones that speak for themselves, Doc! Silly Doc!

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Man...Skylar has completely humiliated you here. You have found another member who is out of your league. But boy........you sure can squirm.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh. I see what you're getting at, Skylar. But the law doesn't say "non contiguous" it mentions "nationality of origin." It has special provisions regarding children from contiguous countries, which speed up the process in theory. It does take longer from non contiguous countries. So that could mean either way. I made the delineation. I simply made a typographical error, typing at 120+ WPM will do that. I did not lie on purpose.

But I did say I was done an hour ago.

 

[JoeB131]

By bypassing congress? Obama doesn't want to wait for Congress to act, he will issue an Executive Order abolishing that law. That law Bush passed made it harder to deport people. I know. I know about the law. My gosh, do you think I'm stupid? But if you want it done, DO IT RIGHT.

“The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by King George III. The description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image. Continental European examples were no more appealing. And, if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the view that the clause is a grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power.”

Justice Hugo Black, Majority Opinion, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

According to Justice Hugo black in that ruling, Executive Orders must:

1) "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”

and they would stand dubiously if it is

2) “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

What Obama is doing might be well and good, but it violates legal precedent. It robs Congress of it's ability to make laws to address the situation.

Skylar. I have been studying law, local, state and federal as a hobby for nearly 5 years. I probably know more about the law than you. Don't lecture me about law. Make Congress repeal that law, the president has no power to.

oh, yeah, you know when I want legal advice, I always go to the failed bagboy who sits on the couch all day.

Here's the problem. Congress has had SEVEN FREAKIN' YEARS to reform the immigration law. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have called on them to do so, the Senate passed a law that the house refuses to take up because all these guys are wetting themselves over what the Teabaggers might do to them if they do.

Congress won't even debate the law, so you can't really blame Obama for trying to deal with the situation as best he can under current law and using his own discretionary powers.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not. Your argument hinges on "non-contiguous."

Now that you've admitted my argument is about children from non-contiguous countries, you've finally returned to integrity land. Take a chair. Enjoy the view...its really nice here!

"unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence"

And lo and behold, there are provisions pertaining to children from contiguous countries NOT being deported immediately, until such an agreement can be negotiated with their country of origin, or in this case a country located geographically in a contiguous manner with the mainland United States.

You've *finally* figured this out, have you? Welcome to the party! That only took 2 hours. Want a short cut for next time? Here's my first post on this thread:

Because these children are from non-contiguous countries (not Canada or Mexico), they cannot be immediately deported, but must first go before a judge. This is according to U.S. law, as well as international refugee treaties to which the U.S. is party.

Explaining the surge of child migrants from Central America

With Obama looking to change that law, to make it easier to deport these children:

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

What about this, specifically do you object to, Templar?

Skylar
Today, 02:05 AM

Next time, just read what you're replying to. It will clue you in faster and save you loads of time.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I should have been in bed hours ago. I have a lawn to mow. I'll pick this up later today. Truce?

Whoa.......a lawn to mow! Capitulation?

 

[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.

You are the one who claimed that Bush passed the law. Man...Skylar has completely humiliated you here. You have found another member who is out if your league. But boy........you sure can squirm.

He signed it, he advocated for it, in his signage, he played his role in passing it.

Plus, I dare not count how many times I've crushed you beneath my heel. In fact, I just destroyed his argument. He interpreted the law to mean ONLY non contiguous, when in fact it applies to both. And it can so happen that neither children from contiguous or non contiguous countries could be deported immediately, since they are ALL HELD PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

Now hush.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

Well, if Congress would do its job, maybe he wouldn't have to work around them.

As bad as the partisanship got under Clinton and Bush, Congress still did their jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

I should have been in bed hours ago. I have a lawn to mow. I'll pick this up later today. Truce?

Whoa.......a lawn to mow! Capitulation?

It's the closest he's gotten to work in years.

 

[Skylar]

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

Bush didn't pass any laws. He signed them unto law. Your contention that this is a Honduran ploy regarding the Dream Act is ridiculous.

So disprove it.

Its your claim. Why don't you factually establish it first. 'Disprove anything I imagine!' isn't really an argument.

Its an excuse for one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not. Your argument hinges on "non-contiguous."

Now that you've admitted my argument is about children from non-contiguous countries, you've finally returned to integrity land. Take a chair. Enjoy the view...its really nice here!

"unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence"

And lo and behold, there are provisions pertaining to children from contiguous countries NOT being deported immediately, until such an agreement can be negotiated with their country of origin, or in this case a country located geographically in a contiguous manner with the mainland United States.

You've *finally* figured this out, have you? Welcome to the party! That only took 2 hours. Want a short cut for next time? Here's my first post on this thread:

With Obama looking to change that law, to make it easier to deport these children:

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

What about this, specifically do you object to, Templar?

Skylar
Today, 02:05 AM

Next time, just read what you're replying to. It will clue you in faster and save you loads of time.

I knew what your argument was. In fact I was reading multiple versions of the law, since there are versions dating back to 2003. You cited the 2008 version. There was an existing one already in place for children from Mexico, as you quoted 2 hours ago. I was way ahead of you.

And how can "Obama change that law"? Are you implying he can do so without the need of congress? Talk about a faux pas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bush didn't pass any laws. He signed them unto law. Your contention that this is a Honduran ploy regarding the Dream Act is ridiculous.

So disprove it.

Its your claim. Why don't you factually establish it first. 'Disprove anything I imagine!' isn't really an argument.

Its an excuse for one.

It might be. But I'm asking him to prove it. He said it was 'ridiculous' so I expect him to prove as to why. He shifted the burden of proof to himself the moment he said so.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Still squirming........that grass isn't going to cut itself, child.

I wonder if you honestly believe that you have destroyed Skylar's argument in this thread?

Are you that delusional?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh. I see what you're getting at, Skylar. But the law doesn't say "non contiguous" it mentions "nationality of origin." It has special provisions regarding children from contiguous countries, which speed up the process in theory. It does take longer from non contiguous countries. So that could mean either way. I made the delineation. I simply made a typographical error, typing at 120+ WPM will do that. I did not lie on purpose.

But I did say I was done an hour ago.

You were 'done' before you started the thread.

And all you've accomplished is to once again confirm the fact that you're ignorant of the law and a tedious partisan hack.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So disprove it.

Its your claim. Why don't you factually establish it first. 'Disprove anything I imagine!' isn't really an argument.

Its an excuse for one.

It might be. But I'm asking him to prove it. He said it was 'ridiculous' so I expect him to prove as to why. He shifted the burden of proof to himself the moment he said so.

Well.....for starters.....the Dream Act doesn't apply to anyone entering the country in 2014. It stipulates:

"Under the DREAM Act, most students who came to the U.S. at age 15 or younger at least five years before the date of the bill’s enactment and who have maintained good moral character since entering the U.S. would qualify for conditional permanent resident status upon acceptance to college, graduation from a U.S. high school, or being awarded a GED in the U.S."

******* loser idiot. It doesn't apply to these kids....or any newly arrived immigrant child.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama's overall lenience on deportation prompted the Hondurans to send their children here. Even though the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy does not apply to these children, Central American countries perceived this to mean any child. You can tell by the influx of Central American children.

They sent them here based on their ignorance of that policy, it was passed to them via word of mouth. They were not educated because someone somewhere willfully lied to them about it.

 

[Skylar]

I knew what your argument was.

And with that admission, you've proven yet again that you were lying when you said this:

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

Templar Kormac

You knew what my argument actually was. And lied. Sigh.....which was so pointless. You traded your integrity for exactly nothing.

In fact I was reading multiple versions of the law, since there are versions dating back to 2003. You cited the 2008 version.

The law was passed in 2008. I cited the version they passed. AKA, the law.

There was an existing one already in place for children from Mexico, as you quoted 2 hours ago. I was way ahead of you.

Laughing....apparently so ahead that you've been blundering and misquoting me for hours. Dude, its not like no one can go back and read the thread and see this rhetorical gem:

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.

Templar Kormac
Today, 02:52 AM

That's almost an hour after I educated you on the the 2008 law. But you were 'way ahead of me', huh?

Sigh....you're really not very good at this.

And how can "Obama change that law" are you implying he can do so without the need of congress? Talk about a faux pas.

You still haven't actually read what you're replying to. You *still* haven't read even the very first post I offered you. Wow. Just....wow.

Once again, a repeat of nearly 3 hours ago:

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/363640-why-have-laws.html#post9397205

Obama is asking congress to change the law. Have you finally caught up?

 

[gipper]

[

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.

Well, if Congress would do its job, maybe he wouldn't have to work around them.

As bad as the partisanship got under Clinton and Bush, Congress still did their jobs.

Oh geez...Lil' Joe is at it again.

Imagine if you will, an R POTUS saying...I will bypass Congress, along with many other dictatorial statements...libs everywhere including the MSM would go CRAZY...but since your guy does it...it is all A-OK.

Hypocrites in the extreme.

And Joey, do you know what they mean when they demand Immigration Reform? It is amnesty for millions of illegals, while the border is still wide open so more can enter. We do not need immigration reform dummy....granting millions of poor illiterate people citizenship so they can vote D. What we need is an effective border patrol preventing illegal immigration.

..and check out my signature...in honor of YOU.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama's overall lenience on deportation prompted the Hondurans to send their children here. Even though the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy does not apply to these children, Central American countries perceived this to mean any child. You can tell by the influx of Central American children.

They sent them here based on their ignorance of that policy, it was passed to them via word of mouth. They were not educated because someone somewhere willfully lied to them about it.

Fail.

Post hoc fallacy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obama's overall lenience on deportation prompted the Hondurans to send their children here. Even though the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy does not apply to these children, Central American countries perceived this to mean any child. You can tell by the influx of Central American children.

They sent them here based on their ignorance of that policy, it was passed to them via word of mouth. They were not educated because someone somewhere willfully lied to them about it.

It seems you are now laying the blame on misinformed Hondurans. That's good....because that is where it lies. When you say "someone, somewhere", you are not referring to the president, right?

This is where you take a break from mowing and grab a nice cold glass of lemonade to go along with the slice of humble pie that I just shoved down your oversized throat.

Admit your error. Acknowledge your utter defeat. But please....don't beg the mods to delete the thread. That is unseemly and hardly the action of a true knight.