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.
And many consider this to be de facto amnesty by playing with words.
There has to be a better way.
Well yes and no to amnesty.
Obama and his backers/supporters of the action regarding deferred deportation are betting upon subsequent administrations not having the balls to "tear families apart"; thus will either renew the scheme and or find a way to make those affected legal residents/pathway to citizenship.
Obama has had a team of "experts" fine tuning and going over this thing for months. As with gay marriage and Obamacare they are pretty sure they have crafted something that will withstand legal challenges and or other actions. It is also why Obama didn't go as far as some immigrant rights persons wanted. Clearly again those working on this scheme knew what would and what would not fly.
Ever since the Kennedy immigration reform of the 1960's the USA has been focused on family unity when it comes to that process. Obama is picking that ball up and running.
Congress again could put an end to all this by reforming immigration laws removing various amounts of administrative discretion that body surrendered to the POTUS. However it would probably mean creating a tedious set of laws that spelled things out in minute detail.
Not all legislation is self-executing, witness the numerous government agencies with quasi-legislative and/or quasi-judicial powers delegated by Congress to administer the laws. Considering that, the President's use of executive orders is rather small beer.
There is seldom a urgent need for immediate action, so it begs the question as to why cannot a president take to the airways to convince the citizens of the country as to why a given action needs to be taken while bypassing congress?
If the people are convinced at least there would be public support of a given action and much less dismay and distrust of it. At least in my opinion.
Granted, I am not a political expert but I think it would be less of a problem if there were popular support of a given action.
Comments?
Ever have a boss? Ever get a memo from him/her about how you should be setting priorities or about procedures you should be following?
You don't call in the board of directors to make housekeeping decisions.
And, the president has been given specific powers, by the constitution and by law, that do not require congress.
Not trying to argue, but what was the hurry on immigration and why no attempt to educate the public as to the necessity of such action in a unilateral manner? It appears to be political rather than trying to resolve an admitted problem.
Actually, congress and the president have been going back and forth on this for several years. There's a lot of pressure from business and immigration interest groups to take action. Obama finally just did what is in his power to do, because congress, at this point, is simply not going to do anything.
If you're interested in this issue, I'm surprised you don't know this.
But he cannot discard one set of laws by his own discretion and enact new laws on his own.
Of course not.
But he is the chief executive, and he must communicate his orders to administrative agencies *somehow*, unless you think ESP is a good mode for doing that. EOs are one of the ways open to him. And, as I noted above, he does have powers that do not require congress.
And many consider this to be de facto amnesty by playing with words.
There has to be a better way.
The better way would be for the president and congress to agree on what actions to take. But they don't, and won't by the end of the year, and they certainly won't agree during the upcoming term of congress. So he is doing what is in his power to do, and that is telling the relevant agencies what their enforcement guidelines are.
Do you realize that there has just been 28 reasonably well stated posts with little acrimony regarding EOs. It has actually been enjoyable to read this discussion.
Looking forward to more reading when I get home from work.
Obama and his backers/supporters of the action regarding deferred deportation are betting upon subsequent administrations not having the balls to "tear families apart"; thus will either renew the scheme and or find a way to make those affected legal residents/pathway to citizenship.
Obama has had a team of "experts" fine tuning and going over this thing for months. As with gay marriage and Obamacare they are pretty sure they have crafted something that will withstand legal challenges and or other actions. It is also why Obama didn't go as far as some immigrant rights persons wanted. Clearly again those working on this scheme knew what would and what would not fly.
Ever since the Kennedy immigration reform of the 1960's the USA has been focused on family unity when it comes to that process. Obama is picking that ball up and running.
Congress again could put an end to all this by reforming immigration laws removing various amounts of administrative discretion that body surrendered to the POTUS. However it would probably mean creating a tedious set of laws that spelled things out in minute detail.
Or enforcement of existing laws to see how that works before changing them by declaration.
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.
