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.
Taxes are already federal law, passed by Congress. The immigration EO is simply saying that we will de-prioritize enforcement where immigrants are paying the taxes that Congress has already required. This is not some new tax.
Those who will pay the taxes, wouldnt previously have had to pay them. Its a NEW TAX
Those who will pay the taxes, wouldnt previously have had to pay them. Its a NEW TAX
That's not true. The taxes are, in fact, imposed on any income in the United States, in spite of the legal status of the person earning that income. Therefore it is not a new tax, but rather the existing tax imposed by Congress.
Legislative authority is different from Executive authority. Executive authority includes, for example, prosecutorial discretion. It includes management of the Executive bureaucracy. That role is the President's, and not Congress'. "Faithful execution" does not mean that every single offense against federal law must be prosecuted--there are obvious resource constraints that prevent such a reading. Congress could pass a law that prioritizes federal immigration law crimes for prosecuting purposes, but it has not done so. If it did, then it would be a tough question about whether Congress' law has unconstitutionally infringed on the President's Executive authority.
There is indeed prosecutotial discretion and not every case gets prosecuted. That's different from setting aside the law.
That's not true. The taxes are, in fact, imposed on any income in the United States, in spite of the legal status of the person earning that income. Therefore it is not a new tax, but rather the existing tax imposed by Congress.
"This thread is about whether the president of the United States has the authority to sign Executive Orders or not." Really?
"Amnesty" through Executive Order an impeachable offense?
I think you are on the wrong thread.
If the president actually offered Amnesty through executive order then you may be right. Although two other presidents actually did this, there could be a case made by the republicans that Amnesty was illegal and win in court. Especially the way it's stacked conservative now.
But it isn't
It's all about prosecutorial discretion. And based on that, the president will prevail.
Why?
Because the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill by a vote of 68 to 32 and sent it to the house. In it, the bill provided the necessary revenue to completely give the president the power and the money necessary to effectively carry out the legislative mandate and close the border, provide additional security and fund the transition from illegal to legal citizen.
The republican house refuses to take up the bill.
The republicans have refused two additional requests by the president for funding that would have increased security, increased border agents and dealing with illegal immigrants.
The president doesn't have enough money to effectively enforce the laws the way the republicans would like.
Therefor, he is invoking prosecutorial discretion to selectively enforce immigration law as he sees fit and what the administration's budget will allow for.
As he stated, "we will concentrate on felons, not families."
I have a very good comprehension what's actually going on with the president's EO and the republican reaction.
I'll give you another clue that you can take to the bank.
When republican legislators come back from the holiday break, they will do nothing about the EO. Zip! Nada! Mainstream republicans will sweep the whole issue under the table. It will just be the radical fringe base that will be moaning on the sidelines.
It is not setting aside the law. It is prioritizing categories of enforcement.
When you offer legal status, you are saying the law does not apply to these millions of people and you are acting in direct contradiction to existing law. It's not saying we're not going to prosecute. It's saying you are legal.
If the president actually offered Amnesty through executive order then you may be right. Although two other presidents actually did this, there could be a case made by the republicans that Amnesty was illegal and win in court. Especially the way it's stacked conservative now.
But it isn't
It's all about prosecutorial discretion. And based on that, the president will prevail.
I doubt it. And it's not just about prosecutorial discretion in regards to Obama's EOs on illegal immigration. By issuing those 2 EOs, Obama himself twice committed the federal offense of aiding and abetting the harboring of illegal aliens in the U.S. The president himself does not have the authority to violate federal law. Period.
And there is precedent to what I've stated about Obama committing federal offenses by issuing these 2 EOs... U.S. District Court Judge Hanen's ruling: While prosecutors have the ability to defer prosecution or arrest in particular cases, "it [The Court] is not aware of any accepted legal principle, including prosecutorial discretion, that not only allows the government to decline prosecutions, but further allows it to actually complete the intended criminalmission."
Obama has committed federal offenses in issuing the 2 illegal immigration EOs.
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.
