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.
According to the above this entire brouhaha could disappear not with a bang but with a whimper:
(emphasis mine)
Imagine you're in the US illegally. You're doing some low wage labor for cash, or maybe working under a fake social security number. It's not easy but you have a modus operandi that has worked. Now you have the option to register with the DHS, and for two years you will be able to work legally. After Jan 20, 2017 what happens is anybody's guess. Maybe the new prez builds a 2000 mile impenetrable wall, rounds up all who have registered, and sends them back home.
Do you register with DHS, or do you wait to see what happens the next 2 years?
I doubt most of these people can easily figure this out LOL
But just to do themselves a big favor, they better think long and hard before taking advantage. Once out of the shadows, there is a spotlight on you and that spotlight could get a whole brighter in 2017. It is like a bunch of illegal immigrants protesting in Los Angeles and the government flying in with helicopters and huge nets.
Location: Living near our Nation's Capitol since 2010
2,218 posts, read 3,455,141 times
Reputation: 6035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
That is a lame argument. Basically you are saying that Obama should be able to amend Obamacare as he pleases because it was presented by Congress . Come on now, you know better than that. The Congress in 1989 refused to change the immigration bill, so Bush Sr acted on his own. It is the mirror image of what happened yesterday.
I disagree that it is a lame arguement. In this case, unlike the other two, at least there was Congressional involvement. There was NONE here. Hello Dictatorship!!
This is NOT the same as Regan and Bush. They were acting on bills presented by Congress. This was a unilateral decision by Obama. That is vastly different than Bush and Regan. Looks like we now live in a dictatorship.
Just because somebody on the radio or television refers to this president as being a dictator, one does not need to adopt the opinion as true. There is a vast world of difference between dictatorship and what Obama, and prior presidents, have done via executive order.
Remember: executive orders may be undone by the president (present or future) at the stroke of a pen, or by Congress if they pass a law and the president signs said law. Hardly the attributes of a dictatorship.
Whether you aggree with Obama 's action or not, one thing is certain: he is on rock-solid legal ground.
Maybe, but some scholars disagree.
Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley called this is a “particularly dangerous moment” for the president to defy the will of Congress yet again, just 15 days after an election in which the American people registered their emphatic (anti-Obama) judgment. “What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution,” according to Professor Turley. “We have a separation of powers that gives us balance. And that doesn’t protect the branches — it’s not there to protect the executive branch or legislative branch — it’s to protect liberty. It’s to prevent any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.”
I disagree that it is a lame arguement. In this case, unlike the other two, at least there was Congressional involvement. There was NONE here. Hello Dictatorship!!
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The Congress in 1989 CHOSE to NOT change the law, and the president acted on his own.
Do you think Obama is authorized to change Obamacare because there was Congressional involvement? Yes, or no? Your argument suggests presidents are authorized to change laws as long as Congress had passed them, which is actually 100% if the laws.
And they all failed to do what they said.
You think this one is any different ?
No, there has never been one which authorized full fence. There was one which authorized 600 miles of fence, and 600 was built. It did what it was designed to do, which is exactly the opposite of what you just said.
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.
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.
. Come on now, you know better than that. The Congress in 1989 refused to change the immigration bill, so Bush Sr acted on his own. It is the mirror image of what happened yesterday.
