U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2015, 09:25 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,417,644 times
Reputation: 521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Got to admit you are consistent. Hopelessly incorrect but consistent. And pushing a hopeless case while things continue to degrade.

You need a Constitutional Amendment...you cannot get one.

Almost half of the illegals are already off the books. Making employment more difficult would simply increase the percentage.

And continue the status quo is the worse case. The only good news is that we will eventually run out of Mexicans.
Well keeping them here isn't really rational either. I'm not sure how he is hopelessly consistent. There has been some improvement in cracking down on hiring worker who don't have the legal paperwork or proper SSNs. It's better than nothing.

They don't belong here. If they have legal documentation that allows them to remain here. Many Western nations are like this. I don't see why we should be any different.

 
Old 02-09-2015, 10:16 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 7,976,337 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Same old BS. But what is it you want the court to do? Not what makes you unhappy. You really want the court to direct the Congress to provide a 100 billion or more to deport the available illegals?

And no you can't change the Constitution because you blew on a flower. You need Congress and then a large percentage of the states. You have neither.

Don't you ever tire of beating the dead horse? Does not the stuff splattering on you cause discouragement?

And yet apparently Obama can change the constitution without congress, just at his whim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
So another 200,000 federal employees and local police officers? Add 10 or 20% to your tax bill? To be followed by requirements to fix whatever else it is that the federal courts find wrong. Maybe double the money spent on minority schooling? Universal health care courtesy of the federal courts.

Oh you will just love having the courts in charge,.
You appear to have the misconception that deporting illegals will only cost us money. Not so.

Allowing, and encouraging it do not make us prosperous, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to change everything for their benefit, pay their healthcare and look the other way at the crimes they commit.

Far less than the cost of deporting them.

BTW, it is not the courts attempting to "fix" this problem. They, when they can get away from Obama, are trying to uphold the constitution on this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
In the long run I don't see how Obama loses this one. You might win one case with a partisan district court judge, but there really isn't anything I see the courts being willing to do on this one and here is why.

1. Almost anything will be unenforceable, this is because its the executive branch's job to bring and prosecute both federal criminal and immigration cases. The judicial branch can be mad and disagree with how prosecutorial discretion is applied, but they aren't willing to do anything about it. In essence for the courts to step in and try to use civilians or judicial authority to start prosecuting federal cases would be an unacceptable breach of separation of powers that the judicial branch has recognized for centuries.

2. Immigration is a federal question. This is settled and states cannot create their own immigration policies. Thus bringing in state officials to set immigration policy would not fly, higher courts have said as much as recently as 2012.

3. The only way to change immigration policy is to change immigration law or change who runs the executive branch. Only congress or the voters can do that respectively.

As such absent a change in the executive branch or federal legislation I don't see how Obama's immigration policies can be changed.
They can be ruled unconstitutional, allowing law enforcement to start enforcing the legal laws instead of ignoring them per Obama.

Last edited by Yac; 02-10-2015 at 04:53 AM.. Reason: 3 posts in a row merged
 
Old 02-09-2015, 10:52 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,163,811 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
They can be ruled unconstitutional, allowing law enforcement to start enforcing the legal laws instead of ignoring them per Obama.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. The bolded part is the crux of the issue. At the federal level President Obama and under him attorney general Holder, and secretary Jeh Johnson ARE the chief law enforcement officers for the federal government as far as immigration. The Constitution has a separation of powers at the federal level between the 3 branches of government and the executive branch is the enforcement branch and like all executive related offices they have discretion in which crimes they target and whom they choose to prosecute. The courts have no say in this because they are the courts and their job is to handle the process post charging and arrest.

In essence at the federal level President Obama is the head of federal law enforcement. While you might not like it, that is not a constitutional problem that is a political issue.

Now you could argue that state governments can start doing their own immigration policy and enforcement and you would be wrong because of something called federal preemption which is a supremacy clause issue.

Its all perfectly Constitutional.

Last edited by Egbert; 02-09-2015 at 11:01 AM..
 
Old 02-09-2015, 01:04 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,435 posts, read 15,943,293 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
I don't think you understand what I am saying. The bolded part is the crux of the issue. At the federal level President Obama and under him attorney general Holder, and secretary Jeh Johnson ARE the chief law enforcement officers for the federal government as far as immigration. The Constitution has a separation of powers at the federal level between the 3 branches of government and the executive branch is the enforcement branch and like all executive related offices they have discretion in which crimes they target and whom they choose to prosecute. The courts have no say in this because they are the courts and their job is to handle the process post charging and arrest.

In essence at the federal level President Obama is the head of federal law enforcement. While you might not like it, that is not a constitutional problem that is a political issue.

Now you could argue that state governments can start doing their own immigration policy and enforcement and you would be wrong because of something called federal preemption which is a supremacy clause issue.

Its all perfectly Constitutional.
It's so WRONG. Kinda like when the SCOTUS ruled that the Cherokee had a right to remain in their own Nation, yet Pres Andrew Jackson (executive branch) expelled them anyway.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 02:14 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,163,811 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
It's so WRONG. Kinda like when the SCOTUS ruled that the Cherokee had a right to remain in their own Nation, yet Pres Andrew Jackson (executive branch) expelled them anyway.
I don't think that is a good comparison because in that case President Jackson was enforcing an illegal order as opposed to not pursuing a potentially legal case.

A more accurate comparison not necessarily in terms of reasoning or magnitude, but just purely in terms of process is when in the early 20th century southern sheriffs and prosecutors refused to arrest and try people suspected of lynching African Americans. Murder was certainly a crime in the south but absent enforcement there was nothing courts could do about it even if they wanted to.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 02:52 PM
 
31,475 posts, read 14,565,596 times
Reputation: 8350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
You appear to have the misconception that deporting illegals will only cost us money. Not so.

Allowing, and encouraging it do not make us prosperous, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to change everything for their benefit, pay their healthcare and look the other way at the crimes they commit.

Far less than the cost of deporting them.

BTW, it is not the courts attempting to "fix" this problem. They, when they can get away from Obama, are trying to uphold the constitution on this subject.
You're right. Just how much will it cost us to give them amnesty and monitor them for compliance on paying back taxes, learning English and all the other so-called criteria for being able to remain here legally? How much is it going to cost in labor to figure who has a criminal record and who doesn't in order determine their eligibility to get in on an amnesty? In the meantime what about the jobs they are holding that Americans need? Deporting them as our laws state and/or implementing e-verify will free up those jobs.

It costs little to nothing to implement e-verify in every workplace, deny them benefits and have the Supreme Court rule once and for all on birthright citizenship. As they continue to have anchor babies whether they remain here illegally or become legal they will still cost us in welfare dollars supporting them until they are 18 years old. But at least those two incentives will be removed for more to come here.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 03:34 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,137,944 times
Reputation: 5398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
I don't think that is a good comparison because in that case President Jackson was enforcing an illegal order as opposed to not pursuing a potentially legal case.

A more accurate comparison not necessarily in terms of reasoning or magnitude, but just purely in terms of process is when in the early 20th century southern sheriffs and prosecutors refused to arrest and try people suspected of lynching African Americans. Murder was certainly a crime in the south but absent enforcement there was nothing courts could do about it even if they wanted to.
Closer but not really the same. The sheriffs and DAs had the capability of arresting the lynchers. The President does not have the capability of ever even reducing the number of illegals. The capability funded by the Congress is probably not even large enough to keep the number from growing if economic forces go the wrong way. We are arguing the President's options when he is unable to enforce the law as it is written.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 04:25 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,163,811 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Closer but not really the same. The sheriffs and DAs had the capability of arresting the lynchers. The President does not have the capability of ever even reducing the number of illegals. The capability funded by the Congress is probably not even large enough to keep the number from growing if economic forces go the wrong way. We are arguing the President's options when he is unable to enforce the law as it is written.
Even assuming this is true which it very well may be I just am not sure. I still doubt President Obama would go after persons with dreamer or DACA status even if he had the resources.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 05:33 PM
 
31,475 posts, read 14,565,596 times
Reputation: 8350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Even assuming this is true which it very well may be I just am not sure. I still doubt President Obama would go after persons with dreamer or DACA status even if he had the resources.
Yet monies were funded by congress in the billions to fight useless wars. There is a lot of waste in government spending all over the spectrum. We are spending billions on illegal aliens year after year but we don't have the monies to deport them? It's not a matter of not having the monies or the right to enforce our immigration laws it's a lack of will by the powers that be. I think you're right Obama would do what he is doing no matter what. Funny how in past administrations illegal aliens were deported. Did they not have the money nor the right to do so? I laugh at the lame arguments in here for not enforcing our immigration laws. These pro-illegals use every excuse in the book. Why have immigration laws if no one in our government has the right to enforce them no matter what they claim the reason for it is.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 07:49 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,137,944 times
Reputation: 5398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Even assuming this is true which it very well may be I just am not sure. I still doubt President Obama would go after persons with dreamer or DACA status even if he had the resources.
If the funding had been available at the appropriate time the question would never occur. At this point your view is entirely a hypothetical one...and of no import.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top