Supreme Court Appears Ready to Let Trump End DACA Program

  
Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  one month ago  •  196 comments

By:   Adam Liptak

Supreme Court Appears Ready to Let Trump End DACA Program
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration in its efforts to shut down a program protecting about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers. The court’s liberal justices probed the administration’s justifications for ending the program, expressing skepticism about its rationales for doing so. But other justices, including President Trump’s two appointees, indicated that they would not second-guess the...

This is going to be interesting and will bring a barrage of "but the court is loaded" claims by heart bleeding liberals............if it turns out against their "feelings". 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


“I assume that was a very considered decision,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said of a second set of justifications offered by the administration in a memorandum last year after its decision to end the program was challenged in court.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he saw little point in requiring the administration to come forward with better or more elaborate reasons. “What good would another five years of litigation over the adequacy of that explanation serve?” he asked.
Still, the justices agreed that the young people who signed up for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, were sympathetic and that they and their families, schools and employers had relied on it in good faith. “I hear a lot of facts, sympathetic facts, that you’ve put out there, and they speak to all of us,” Justice Gorsuch said.
And while Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that the administration was on solid legal footing in saying the program was unlawful, he said the Supreme Court could rule in a humane way, minimizing the hardships people participating in the program would face if it were ended.
“It’s not always the case when the government acts illegally in a way that affects other people,” he said, “that we go back and untangle all of the consequences of that.” The program, he suggested, could be wound down in measured steps.
Chief Justice Roberts added that both the Obama and Trump administrations have said they would not deport people eligible for the program, meaning that the main practical questions if the program is ended would be their ability to work legally, obtain driver’s licenses and the like.
“The whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits,” the chief justice said. “Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport the people.”
The arguments in the case, one of the most important of the court’s term, addressed the president’s power over immigration, a critical issue for Mr. Trump and a divisive one, especially as it has played out in the debate over DACA, a program that has broad, bipartisan support.
The program, announced by President Barack Obama in 2012, allows young people brought to the United States as children to apply for a temporary status that shields them from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years and is renewable, but it does not provide a path to citizenship.
In the past, Mr. Trump has praised the program’s goals and suggested he wanted to preserve it. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?” he asked in a 2017 Twitter post.
But as the court took up its future on Tuesday, Mr. Trump struck a different tone. “Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels,’” he wrote on Twitter. “Some are very tough, hardened criminals.”
In fact, the program has strict requirements. To be eligible, applicants had to show that they had committed no serious crimes, had arrived in the United States before they turned 16 and were no older than 30, had lived in the United States for at least the previous five years, and were in school, had graduated from high school or received a G.E.D. certificate, or were an honorably discharged veteran.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the DACA recipients were justified in relying on Mr. Trump’s earlier statements. Mr. Trump, she said, had been “telling DACA-eligible people that they were safe under him and that he would find a way to keep them here.”
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, said the program was by its nature an interim step.
“DACA was always meant to be a temporary stopgap measure that could be rescinded at any time, which is why it was only granted in two-year increments,” he said. “So I don’t think anybody could have reasonably assumed that DACA was going to remain in effect in perpetuity.”
But Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that many people and groups had indeed relied on the program to continue indefinitely, judging by the supporting briefs filed in the three cases before the court, including the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587.
“There are 66 health care organizations,” he said. “There are three labor unions. There are 210 educational associations. There are six military organizations. There are three home builders, five states plus those involved, 108, I think, municipalities and cities, 129 religious organizations and 145 businesses.”
The roots of the decision to shut down the program figured in the argument, as the justices parsed two sets of rationales from successive heads of the Department of Homeland Security.
After contentious debates among his aides, Mr. Trump announced in September 2017 that he would wind down the program. He gave only a single reason for doing so, saying that creating or maintaining the program was beyond the legal power of any president.
“I do not favor punishing children,” Mr. Trump said in his formal announcement of the termination. But, he added, “the program is unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court.”
That decision was reflected in a bare-bones memo from Elaine C. Duke, then the acting secretary of homeland security. She offered no policy reasons for the move, just that DACA was unlawful.
Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for the DACA recipients, said the memo allowed the administration to avoid taking political heat on the issue. “The administration did not want to own this decision,” he said.
Mr. Francisco disagreed. “We own this,” he said.

Mr. Francisco pointed to a second memo, issued last year by Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary at the time. It mostly relied on the earlier rationales in Ms. Duke’s memo, but added one more, about the importance of projecting a message “that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws against all classes and categories of aliens.”
That policy justification, Mr. Francisco said, was sufficient even if the administration was mistaken in its legal rationale.
Michael J. Mongan, California’s solicitor general, who argued in favor of the program, disagreed, calling Ms. Nielsen’s new rationale “a boilerplate assertion.”
Mr. Olson acknowledged that it was theoretically possible for the Trump administration to end the program without violating the law. Asked by Justice Kavanaugh if “the executive has the legal authority to rescind DACA,” Mr. Olson said yes.
But Mr. Olson said the administration’s justifications for doing so had to make sense, particularly given what was at stake.
“The government’s termination of DACA triggered abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individuals, their families, employers, communities and the armed forces,” he said. “That decision required the government to provide an accurate, reasoned, rational and legally sound explanation. It utterly failed to do so.”
The Trump administration’s argument that the program was unlawful was based on a 2015 ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. But that decision concerned a different, much larger program. Lower courts have ruled that the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration’s legal analysis.
On Tuesday, Justice Sotomayor appeared to agree, saying that said she had not seen an adequate explanation for the termination. “This is not about the law,” she said. “This is about our choice to destroy lives.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that it was impossible to disentangle the administration’s legal rationale from its later policy justification. “We don’t know how she would respond,” Justice Ginsburg said of Ms. Nielsen, “if there were a clear recognition that there was nothing illegal about DACA.”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

While I have some sympathy for the DACA "kids" because their parents broke the law, they were looking for a better life........kids or no kids. But we still have to remember this........

384

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

“The whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits,” the chief justice said. “Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport the people.”

End the program going forward and get the young people who were brought here on a fast track to citizenship.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.1  loki12  replied to  WallyW @1.1    one month ago

Disagree, give the ones that registered (700,000) permanent residence status, no path to citizenship without military service. We shouldn’t reward law breaking with the greatest gift, US citizenship.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

“This is not about the law,” she said. “This is about our choice to destroy lives.”

Soyna - you'd better read what SCOTUS's function is - upholding the Constitution which is the "Law of the Land".  Feelings/opinions do not constitute law.

Thanks Jim :-)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2    one month ago

1st, 

Again, the law of the land has been very fuzzy about EO's. They have been done since the beginning of this country and no other president has reversed them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

So, either clarify the role of EO's or do away with them. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    one month ago

Perrie - DACA/DAPA/DREAMERS - none are Executive Orders.  They are all "Memorandums".  The Dream Act was proposed by the House and defeated by the Senate, but, some folks in Congress really don't give a shyte about following the law and are still trying to enforce it.

The DREAM Act (short for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) was a bill in Congress that would have granted legal status to certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and went to school here. Although several versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress since 2001, it has never passed.

https://www.adl.org/education/educator-resources/lesson-plans/what-is-the-dream-act-and-who-are-the-dreamers

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.3  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.2    one month ago

So what is your position 1st...Do you want to depot all of the dreamers? 

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.4  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @1.2.3    one month ago

should read deport not depot.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.3    one month ago

Follow the LAW - each group of "exemptions" is hurting hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have/are attempting to follow the Immigration LAWS - not memorandums - not agreements - not EA's/EO's.  The children of Illegal Aliens are responsible for their plight.  They've had/will have opportunities to follow the LAWS and obtain the right to file for Citizenship/Naturalization.  If they are over the age of 18 - and most of them are - all they have to do is get off their boo-hoo train and follow the steps laid out for them by the Existing/present/current Federal Immigration Laws - simple friggin' steps.

My wife is a Naturalized U.S. Citizen.  We went through the process and paid a total of $1,825 over a five year period - but, by following the standards/laws, she is now a U.S. Naturalized Citizen.  It ain't so friggin' hard.  Follow the steps as outlined - period - quit crying and DEMANDING special favors.

Congress has had AMPLE opportunity to get together and hash out a very reasonable immigration system - AMPLE opportunities.  Instead, they have battled and battled and bitched and moaned for many years.  Bill Clinton stated that we don't need Illegal Aliens in this country and they should be deported.  Little George said the same thing.  Obama said the same thing.  Trump tries to enforce the existing Congressionally passed Federal Immigration laws - that are on the books - and the Dems/Libs have friggin' hysterics.

If a person is in the U.S. ILLEGALLY, they are eligible for deportation.  If they don't meet the existing standards/laws for residing in the U.S. - deport them - and that includes the DACA/DAPA/Dreamers.

That's my position.  If you're not making an effort, don't bitch when you're deported.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.6  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.5    one month ago
Obama said the same thing.  Trump tries to enforce the existing Congressionally passed Federal Immigration laws - that are on the books - and the Dems/Libs have friggin' hysterics.

I'm a dem and I'm not having friggin' hysterics. Don't throw that blanket out, it don't work. You should know better than that.

Happy that your wife became a naturalized citizen but that doesn't have anything to do with the DACA program. 

As far as laws that are on the books and not being followed or violated the list is quite long, as you should well know. 

If given longer to apply, say a year and than end the program would that be acceptable to you?

 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.7  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.6    one month ago

I know you're a Dem - but you are not in Congress and you are not whining and crying about not getting your way with the system that doesn't allow you to Bend as you see fit.  I know a lot of Dems who want DACA/Dreamers stopped because the programs are not legal programs.

The reference to my wife was simply an example of doing and following the processes that are set out for the existing program.  When the program is Congressionally modified/changed - fine.  Until then, the DACA/Dreamer's can follow the existing processes - as we did.

Oh yeah - hell, there's still laws on the books that have absolutely no reality to their being - having to walk, carrying a lantern 25 feet in front of a horse drawn carriage so it will be seen????  Or, in Arizona, you can't keep a donkey in the bathtub?

As it stands now, DACA/Dreamers are "approved" for two years.  At the end of that time, they can resubmit their application for approval.  There is no listed "ending date" for the renewals, so those folks have ample time to comply with the immigration requirements.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.8  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.7    one month ago
Oh yeah - hell, there's still laws on the books that have absolutely no reality to their being - having to walk, carrying a lantern 25 feet in front of a horse drawn carriage so it will be seen????  Or, in Arizona, you can't keep a donkey in the bathtub?

Those are not the laws I was speaking of, I'm sure that you know that. 

As it stands now, DACA/Dreamers are "approved" for two years.  At the end of that time, they can resubmit their application for approval.  There is no listed "ending date" for the renewals, so those folks have ample time to comply with the immigration requirements.

This all hinges on the SCOTUS ruling. If DACA is declared illegal than what? Deport them all on day one or give them 6 months to a year to apply?

That is the question. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.9  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.2.8    one month ago

Let them stay as permanent residents with no chain migration problems solved.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.10  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.2.9    one month ago
Let them stay as permanent residents with no chain migration problems solved.

My solution is to end the DACA program but let the current DACA people stay and become citizens. 

Problem solved.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.11  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @1.2.10    one month ago

Sorry, no cutting in line. 

They can go through the process like everyone else. They don't like it, no one is stopping them from leaving. The process for becoming a citizen is difficult; just because someone's parents dragged them here as a kid illegally doesn't mean they get special privileges. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.12  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.8    one month ago

In January of this year, Trump offered renewal of the TPS program and extended time periods for DACA and Dreamers.

The Dems in Congress, especially Schumer, said screw you.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.13  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.12    one month ago
The Dems in Congress, especially Schumer, said screw you.

And before that Trump had his money for the wall and an agreement on DACA and he pissed backwards on the deal. And I gave you that link before.  

BTW the majority of Americans want the Dreamers to have a legal status and be allowed to stay in the US.

So there ya go, 1st. 

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.14  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.11    one month ago
Sorry, no cutting in line. 

Sorry, the majority of Americans disagree with you as they in numerous polls have said they want legal status for the dreamers and for them to be allowed to stay in the US.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.15  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.13    one month ago

CNN poll - of course.  Oh yeah - and Trump gave Congress six months - twice - to come up with an alternate plan.  Schumer said, in essence, that that wasn't his job.  Evidently the vibes resonated throughout the Dems/Libs Halls of Congress 'cause they didn't do/haven't done crap except start trying to impeach Trump.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.16  Raven Wing  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.15    one month ago

Then why haven't the Repubs done anything at all either? They've had control of the House and Senate for some time until the Dems recent take over, and they didn't do anything either. So why put all the blame on the Dems as if they are the only ones in Congress that can do anything?

Are the Repubs that inept? Just don't care? Simply hate the Dreamers?

Or all of the above?

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.17  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.15    one month ago
CNN poll - of course.  Oh yeah

That's the best you can do...LOLOL...do some research 1st. It's every poll taken from the Washington Post and the NY Times to the Hill and Newsmax, NPR and FOX NEWS.

Now you jump to a strawman with impeachment. We are talking about DACA in case you forgot. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.18  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @1.2.14    one month ago

Polls? After the last presidential election who trusts those anymore?

Just like every other time we have given an inch on immigration; it ill never be a one off deal. Those down the road will want the exact same special treatment for themselves. End DACA and let these Dreamers have citizenship. There will be a next batch of Dreamers, and another, and another, etc. All of them will demand the same system for themselves.

Amnesty was supposed to be a 1 off with Reagan. No wall from the Democratic Congress in return; and Bush Jr tried to get amnesty part II. Thankfully the Republican Congress told him no. Even if Bush Jr would have gotten his way, amnesty part III would be quickly upon us. Just look at the Democratic candidates tripping over each other to offer the most benefits they can to illegals. Ringing the dinner bell for future illegals at the same time.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.19  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.18    4 weeks ago

Since even the right-wing poll shows that the majority favors allowing the dreamers to stay I'd say the polls just might be accurate. 

It's great that you can see into and predict the future. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.20  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @1.2.19    4 weeks ago

Who needs to predict the future. All one has to do is look at the past. It is a reoccurring cycle.

Congress is unwilling to do it's job to end it.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.21  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @1.2.19    4 weeks ago
poll shows that the majority favors allowing the dreamers to stay I'd say the polls just might be accurate.

what the majority wants means nothing.

 as congress refused to act the dreamers are in for a rude awakening.

perhaps congress should have worked on some legislation instead of the impeachment circus.   ~ just sayin.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.22  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.21    4 weeks ago

I never said it meant anything in the legal sense...What I said is the majority of Americans favor a resolution that will allow the dreamers to stay in the US.

BTW, public pressure can and has made a difference.

Just sayin.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.23  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.20    4 weeks ago

If you feel that congress won't do its job vote them out and quit whining about it. 

Simple enough.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.24  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @1.2.22    4 weeks ago
public pressure can and has made a difference

not when it comes to enforcing existing law.

however, they can influence changes in the law.   tell congress to end the impeachment circus and get busy,

tick tock / time is wasting away

the dreamers need congressional action ( not shiff and pelosi's BS )

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.25  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.24    4 weeks ago
not when it comes to enforcing existing law.

Wrong, it's being done as we speak. 

I agree it can and has an influence in changing existing law. 

the dreamers need congressional action ( not shiff and pelosi's BS )

It's in SCOTUS hands now not Trumps. 

Cheers

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.26  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @1.2.25    4 weeks ago
It's in SCOTUS hands now

yepp... and daca is going to die at their hands

so, what's the new legislation in congress look like?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.27  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.23    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.28  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.17    4 weeks ago

Kavika - polls predict what the originator wants them to predict, and that has been proven time and time again.  All one has to do is to field a loaded question/loaded questions into a preselected demographic and they'll get the exact results they want to get.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.29  Heartland American  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.12    4 weeks ago

Once the Supreme Court reverses DACA the democrats in Congress will have to make a compromise deal with the President on the issue along with citizenship and the border wall.  

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.30  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.28    4 weeks ago

I'm well aware of that 1st. 

Why do you think that the Fox poll showed that the majority of Americans want the dreamers to stay in the US.

You would think that the right-wing Fox News would word it so that it would show that the majority of Americans want them thrown out...Strange.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.31  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.26    4 weeks ago
It might and than again it might not. 

Best to wait to see what SCOTUS has to say before any new legislation. 

Cheers.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.32  Kavika   replied to  Heartland American @1.2.29    4 weeks ago

They already had a deal for the wall and DACA and Trump pulled out of it. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.33  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kavika @1.2.31    4 weeks ago
Best to wait to see what SCOTUS has to say before any new legislation

LOL

you can wait,

however, daca will die at the supreme court.  of this I have no doubt.

I have not gotten a forthcoming supreme court decision wrong in well over 20yrs.    this one is very easy to predict. I said daca would die at the supreme court before it even went to court.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.34  Kavika   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.33    4 weeks ago

Wow, I'm really excited that I've met the real ''Great Karnac''....

Quite amazing that you called the Crow Tribe vs Wyoming SCOTUS decision. That was a really tough one and yet you called it...WOW, just WOW.

Cheers

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.35  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.2.32    4 weeks ago

It isn't a deal till it's signed.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.36  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.2.34    4 weeks ago

??? - you're referring to the Herrera case on hunting??

I musta missed something.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.37  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.36    4 weeks ago

Yes, Herrera Crow Tribe vs Wyoming. 5 to 4 decision in favor of Herrera.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.38  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @1.2.23    4 weeks ago

Really, vote them out. Who would have damn well figured that out. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Would love to do that; but I only count for one damn vote. Since we have a corrupt Establishment two party system and people refuse to vote for the best candidate- rather than taking the lesser of two evils; that makes it kind of difficult to do.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.39  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.38    4 weeks ago

Since you believe that the two party establishment is corrupt looks like you're going to have to live with it. So you can keep on complaining and the system isn't going to change. 

Of course, not everyone believes that the established two-party system is corrupt.

Cheers

 
 
 
loki12
2  loki12    one month ago

Of Course the left will accuse the right of being partisan, they always accuse the right of what they are guilty of, Hypocrisy plain and simple, Roberts broke from the right to support the ACA, Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have broken with the right to vote with the liberals recently. when was the last time a single liberal broke ranks and voted with the right? 

 
 
 
Willjay9
2.1  Willjay9  replied to  loki12 @2    one month ago

Breyer did it in June....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Willjay9 @2.1    one month ago

In what divided case was Breyer's vote decisive?

Each conservative justice broke with the others at least once to provide a 5-4 win for the liberal block last term.

 
 
 
Willjay9
2.1.2  Willjay9  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    one month ago

Now that wasnt the question was it? You cant move the goalpost because you got an answer you dont like!

 
 
 
Willjay9
2.1.3  Willjay9  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    one month ago

But since you went there Breyer and Kagan split regarding the Colorado cake maker case

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.4  loki12  replied to  Willjay9 @2.1.3    one month ago

You answered and I thank you, Breyer split with the liberal block on the dessent,  Thank you. 

As for this,

           Breyer and Kagan

Leaving the herd in a group doesn't count, you can't move the goal posts either, I said 

         a single liberal broke ranks

Breyer did split with his liberal brethren in a one off, even if it was meaningless, you met the criteria of the question so thank you again. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Willjay9 @2.1.3    one month ago
Breyer and Kagan split regarding the Colorado cake maker case

That was a 7-2 case. That wasn't the question, was it?

 
 
 
Willjay9
2.1.6  Willjay9  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one month ago

No the ORIGINAL question was has liberal justices broje rank and voted with Repubs....I gave 2 instances THIS YEAR

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2  Heartland American  replied to  loki12 @2    4 weeks ago

Never in a 5-4 ruling.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3  gooseisgone    one month ago

Hopefully the Supreme Court will understand that Executive Orders are not law, regardless of how well intentioned they may be and they can be rescinded by any President.   

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  gooseisgone @3    one month ago

If the Supreme Court keeps the DACA EO in place it opens up a whole can of worms. Any EO will be given the status of law.  With Trump and Pence in office do they really want to go there?

If the House wasn't so possessed with impeaching Trump they could have written a law to replace DACA. Of course it they did it would have a poison pill, or two, in it that would sure to be rejected by the Senate.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    one month ago
House wasn't so possessed with impeaching Trump

We would have more than DACA done. They are put into office to represent the people, not fight with the opposition party.  I am tired of these SOB's thinking that they are there to oppose everything just because its the oppositions party idea even though they agreed to it 10 years earlier.   

 
 
 
Willjay9
4  Willjay9    one month ago

Honestly there's a Supreme court case that Im more interested in and ironically enough the DOJ is arguing FOR a company who wants to OPENLY discriminate...unprecedented!

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1  It Is ME  replied to  Willjay9 @4    one month ago

"Congress" makes "Laws", not the "Supreme Court" !

Obama bypassed congress, even though he himself said he shouldn't be allowed to do it , when he ….Mr. Obama....went against his own knowledge of what he can do, and did it anyway.

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.1.1  Willjay9  replied to  It Is ME @4.1    one month ago

Ok...this argument again...so Trump can do a Muslim ban and you all claim its perfectly legal but Obama cant give people amnesty because you all claim its illegal??!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.1    one month ago
Ok...this argument again...so Trump can do a Muslim ban and you all claim its perfectly legal but Obama cant give people amnesty because you all claim its illegal??!!

Obama said it was "Illegal"....all by himself...in his own words. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.3  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.1    one month ago
Ok...this argument again...so Trump can do a Muslim ban and you all claim its perfectly legal but Obama cant give people amnesty because you all claim its illegal??!!

I don't think you thought this through prior to posting. One stops people (and it wasn't a fucking Muslim ban but rather a ban on people, perhaps Muslim, from countries who have no vetting system to ensure we know who the hell they really are) from coming in, the other is saying "Thank you sir may I have another..........couple of dozen" that are here and came without enforcement of immigration laws. I don't really care if the kids had no say. The parents are law breakers and should have been stopped or deported post haste and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that these very same people provide instruction and aid to get other "family" members here. You are comparing apples to tire irons.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.4  loki12  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.1    one month ago
so Trump can do a Muslim ban

Another debunked liberal talking point, If it was a muslim ban than Predominately Muslim countries wouldn't have been excluded.  Fail.

But to answer your question in the simplest way possible, yes, Obama didn't pardon them, so his executive order can be overturned by the next president, It wasn't a law! it was an EA, And yes the next President can lift trumps travel ban from countries that export terrorism with a stroke of the pen.  THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OBAMA'S EO's, Anymore so than any other Presidents.  He is not special.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.3    one month ago
and it wasn't a fucking Muslim ban but rather a ban on people, perhaps Muslim, from countries who have no vetting system to ensure we know who the hell they really are

Perhaps you should tell that to Trump...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.1.6  gooseisgone  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.1    one month ago
Muslim ban and you all claim its perfectly legal

It is, until he's out of office, the next President can rescind it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.7  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.5    one month ago

It wasn't all nations full of Muslims or ALL Muslims. FFS go beyond some words. There were seven countries proposed in that ban. They were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. You see my friend *snicker* what do those places, especially Somalia and Yemen, have in common? They don't even know their own populations demographic OR whether or not they are citizens. Many were "passers through" at the time to be able to secure documentation that they were citizens and free to travel if they wanted to. THAT is why it had to be stopped. Just as some of the southern border crossers aren't even from Mexico, Central or South America.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.8  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.7    one month ago

And, the ban was approved by the Federal courts.

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.1.9  Willjay9  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.2    one month ago

Really? Care to cite when he SPECIFICALLY said it was ILLEGAL for him to do that EO?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.9    one month ago

Did you click on the Little Blue colored statement in my comment #4.1 ?

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.1.11  Willjay9  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.3    one month ago

You still havent answered my question....Trump and Obama BOTH use executive orders regarding immigration....but yet somehow one is illegal but the other isnt? Why?!

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.1.12  Willjay9  replied to  loki12 @4.1.4    one month ago

Kind of like the talking point Trump started claiming DACA recipients are "hardened criminals" as one of his reasons for wanting to get rid of it?!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.13  1stwarrior  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.11    one month ago

And you still haven't clicked the link - it answers your question.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.14  loki12  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.11    one month ago

I will put this as simply as possible......The final arbiter of what is legal is the supreme court, they ruled that trumps travel ban was legal.....Period.  That is why it was legal.

The fate of DACA will be decided in the same venue, betting odds are it's up to Roberts, but by creating an administrative program without congressional approval.......Odds are they are toast. Hence "Illegal" if you will pardon the pun.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.7    one month ago
It wasn't all nations full of Muslims or ALL Muslims. FFS go beyond some words. There were seven countries proposed in that ban. They were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. You see my friend *snicker* what do those places, especially Somalia and Yemen, have in common?

What do they have in common?  None have been responsible for any domestic terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is the lead terrorist exporter and responsible for 9/11, if the ban was to protect the country, why weren't they included?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.16  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.15    one month ago

People were coming through some of those countries and obtaining passports "showing" they were citizens of say.......Yemen and it was proven that they weren't. Saudi Arabia has records on and keep track of actual citizens. And you just made my point for me Hint, it wasn't ALL Muslims.

Iraq and Syria and IRAN don't hate the US? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Here is the list............again.

Iran: Entry is suspended for Iranian nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants, with the exception of individuals traveling on valid student and exchange visitor visas. Those temporary visitors will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting.

Libya: Entry is suspended for Libyan nationals as immigrants, as well as nonimmigrants on business and tourist visas.

Somalia: Entry is suspended for Somalian nationals as immigrants. Nonimmigrants traveling to the U.S. will be subjected to enhanced screening and vetting.

Syria: Entry is suspended for Syrian nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants.

Yemen: Entry is suspended for Yemeni nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants traveling on business and tourist visas.

North Korea: Entry is suspended for North Korean nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants.

Venezuela: Entry is suspended for certain Venezuelan government officials and their immediate family members traveling on business and tourist visas.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.16    4 weeks ago
Hint, it wasn't ALL Muslims.

So your claim is that it is okay to ban Muslims as long as you ban some other people as well?

Saudi Arabia has records on and keep track of actual citizens.

So?  Their citizens, that they keep track of, were still the major players in 9/11.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.12    4 weeks ago

Those who have criminal records or commit a crime are not eligible for the DACA program.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

Ozzwald - 1

Jim - 0

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

Here is my problem with this whole issue.

Presidents have been handing down executive orders since Washington. Other presidents honored them. Because this precedent was established, people trusted EO's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

So President Obama told these children of illegals to come out of the darkness and make themselves known, and they trusted in this executive order. Now they stand a chance of being screwed because they trust in our government. This is not a good precedent to start. 

We all know that EO's are not laws, and maybe that needs to be addressed but to punish those who trusted in our government, is ethically wrong. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.1  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    one month ago

Can you show me the EO for DACA?   If he had the courage to issue one I would love to read it. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  loki12 @5.1    one month ago

It was not an Executive Order.

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” creating a non-congressionally authorized administrative program that permitted certain individuals who came to the United States as juveniles and meet several criteria—including lacking any current lawful immigration status—to request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and eligibility for work authorization.  This program became known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The Obama administration chose to deploy DACA by Executive Branch memorandum—despite the fact that Congress affirmatively rejected such a program in the normal legislative process on multiple occasions. The constitutionality of this action has been widely questioned since its inception.

non-congressionally authorized administrative program - That is all the information SCOTUS needs to shut down DACA.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.1    one month ago

It was an executive action, not order. Do you think that most understood that? That it was an extension of"the Dreamer Act"?  Does it make it any less ethical to deport them?

btw.. Trump has overturned most of Obama's EO's, which no other president has done. It has been a big part of our political climate since then.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    one month ago

tRump is such a vindictive petty childish spiteful bully scum not worthy of shining President Obama's shoes and he is insanely jealous of all President Obama accomplished and all he has done is overturn every single possible good thing he put in place.

President Obama will be remembered as the best in my lifetime and tRump will be remembered for what he is, a lying conman grifter thug thief mobster gangster thug grifter that he always has been.  

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.4  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    one month ago
Trump has overturned most of Obama's EO's,

That is not true, A simply false statement.  Why are you promoting fake news?  Here are some numbers for you and a simple way for you to verify that what you posted is false!

Obama issued 276 EO's and 644 Memorandums 

Obama Amended his predecessors EO's 31 times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Barack_Obama

Trump has done 130 EO's and 42 Memorandums

Only 4.......Yes only 4 of his EO's have changed or modified his predecessors EO's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump

Hit F3 and type in Amend and let me know how many of trumps EO's amend other EO's  and how many of Obama's EO's modified his predecessors.

Do you really want to get into the precedent of who is honoring their predecessors EO's?

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    one month ago

Care to list the EO's Trump overturned? Obama used EO's and EA's like no other to increase the power of the executive branch. 

Trump ran on undoing Obama's EO's. He has carried through on that promise.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.5    one month ago

OK for a start, here is what he undid of Obama's work in 2017 alone. I would post it, but it would go on for way too long:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/24/what-trump-has-undone/

Do you think these needed undoing?

Ended a rule that allowed consumers to   file class-action suits   against financial companies.

Revoked an executive order that   mandated compliance by contractors   with laws protecting women in the workplace.

Blocked implementation of a rule that would have made it easier for   farmers to sue   big agricultural companies.

Repeal of a bill that   mandated   that employers maintain records of workplace injuries.

Removed   information about worker injuries   from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration website.

Canceled a   phaseout   of the use of private prisons.

Reversed a   ban on plastic bottles   at national parks.

Rescinded a limit on the   number of sea animals   that can be trapped or killed in fishing nets.

Ended a rule banning   dumping waste from mining into streams .

Repealed   72 documents   defining the rights of students with disabilities.  The administration  argues  that this won’t affect how those students are educated.

And you would have thought he would have learned from Obama about EO's except he didn't. Here is his list of EO's done in 3 years alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump

Yup 130 EO's done by Trump, never mind the other presidential stuff all listed there. Btw.. that puts Trump ahead of Obama for the same 3 year period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Barack_Obama

So, really, who are we fooling here? The only thing that is different is agenda.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.6    one month ago

You think Obama didn't end Bush EO's when he took office? 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Obama100days/story?id=7042171&page=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/23/trump-pledged-to-reverse-obamas-executive-orders-heres-how-well-past-presidents-have-fulfilled-that-pledge/

We used the National Archives’  Executive Orders Disposition Tables to determine how many executive orders were explicitly “revoked” or “superseded” by each of the 12 presidents who have served since Franklin D. Roosevelt.  We counted reversals within newly elected presidents’ first 30 days in office. That count was quite low. Nine presidents reversed three or fewer in that time; Obama hit the high, reversing eight previous presidents’ executive orders within 30 days.

Obama wrote EO's and EA's that created new laws, or exceeded limits on established laws. That was not his job. Congress makes the laws and the President enforces them. Obama bypassed congress. How many of Trump's EO's were undoing Obama's illegal actions? Yet those are counted against Trump? 

I get it, Obama good, Trump bad. Trump should have just let all of Obama's actions stand. That is what a good Establishment career politician would do.  Thankfully Trump is not a member in good standing of the Establishment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.7    4 weeks ago
I get it, Obama good, Trump bad. Trump should have just let all of Obama's actions stand. 

Wrong.Trump no different than Obama. I didn't vote for either. But nice try. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.8    4 weeks ago

tRump is no different than Obama?

What the fuck?

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.10  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.8    4 weeks ago
I didn't vote for either. But nice try.

Neither did I. I haven't voted for an Establishment Presidential candidate since Bill Clinton second term. However, I am leaning heavily towards voting for Trump (even if a has that dreaded R behind his name)- since the left has backed me into a corner. 

I will not hold it against Trump for ending Obama's unlawful EO's. Just like I didn't hold it against Obama for ending those of Bush he didn't agree with. EO's/EA's are not laws. They can be ended at any time by any president.

Of course getting Congress to do their damn jobs is nearly impossible these days. Compromise, unless both sides thinks they can fleece the tax payer for their own benefit, is just about unheard of.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    one month ago

Perrie - this is an issue that is as much the parent's problem as it is the kids.

The "two year window" for renewal of their application GAVE the Illegal Alien children the time needed to file for LEGAL residency.  All they had to do was complete an immigrant petition and a Green Card application (Form I-485) - a 45 minute process.  File the applications with the appropriate USCIS regional office and wait for approval.  IF they were approved, there will be a five year waiting period for continuity of living in the U.S. LEGALLY.

There are many other steps that have to be taken, but the DACA/Dreamers, when they reach the age of 18, have had all the opportunity in the world to apply for citizenship/naturalization.  If they haven't taken those opportunities - quite frankly, they can go back to where their parents brought them from since they are still considered as permanent residents of their home country.

Obama also told the world that he DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do what he was going to do - but, he also said "I have a phone and I have a pen" - which he used very unwisely.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2    one month ago

1st, It was never as easy as just applying. I know so from my daughter's own boyfriend, who is Italian. He was supposed to be able to apply to stay since he had a great job here, and that was all reversed the moment Trump came to office. He tried to do things legally and ended up getting deported for about 2 years. Why would these people who came over illegally by their parents trust our government to honor any agreement? Look when they finally did, they are getting screwed. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    one month ago
He was supposed to be able to apply to stay since he had a great job here, and that was all reversed the moment Trump came to office.

So he was illegal? Most people I know are on work visas or green cards already and they have been here since 2008. And they basically had a "corporate sponsor" to back that up. Hell, right here in Charlotte we have illegals with pizza shops, lawn grooming, cleaning services and other businesses. How in the world do they get loans or business licenses if they don't belong here? Turn the other cheek that's how. 

Sorry about the daughter's boyfriend but I would be interested to know the real story of why he would have to leave. No one waved a magic wand when Trump was elected and started mass deportations that I know of. There has to be an underlying reason (which of course for privacy sake you don't have to share) why all of a sudden he had to go. Who knew he was here? Who turned him in? Did he commit a crime? Lots of holes to fill Perrie but I won't push it and NOW I understand why you are so adamant about this subject...........at least partially.

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    one month ago
He was supposed to be able to apply to stay since he had a great job here

What was he doing "Before" Trump was "Voted" into office ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.2    one month ago

Jim,

He had an H1B visa so he had a corporate sponsor. He was working for a major financial company before the rules changed for the lottery. One of the first things that Trump did when he came to office, was change cut down the lottery size for permanent status. That is why he had to suddenly go and relocated for 2 years to England, where they don't do this crazy kind stuff until he got back into the US with the lottery and legal help from his company. Why would you think someone turned him in or that he was a criminal? For goodness sake, do you realize how insulting that is? I am dumbfounded by the assumptions you made. He is an Honor graduate of Johns Hopkins and this is the kind of applicant who our brilliant president deports. 

And I am adamant about the subject for the reasons I stated, including what happened to my daughter's boyfriend. He did everything right, and he got screwed. But given some of the assumptions made here, I think I am done with this discussion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @5.2.3    one month ago
What was he doing "Before" Trump was "Voted" into office ?

Working for one of the largest financial firms in NYC, in a high paying professional position.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.6  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

There was no insult meant nor was I assuming any of what I asked was the reason and if you took it that way, I apologize. It just sounded a little too easy for him to just be "put on the list" for having to leave. Again, sorry for him he got caught up in a mess.

 
 
 
katrix
5.2.7  katrix  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

Notice how Trump let his illegal immigrant wife's parents get their citizenship before he cut off the rule that allowed them to become citizens?

If you're a beautiful girl who's willing to have sex with Trump, illegal immigration is apparently just fine.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @5.2.7    4 weeks ago

Melania was bought and paid for a long time ago.  

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.9  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.8    4 weeks ago

What a fine feminist you are, isn’t it her body her choice? [Deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  loki12 @5.2.9    4 weeks ago

Weinstein's reputation was well known before it became a [scandal.Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.2.9    4 weeks ago

Neither of President Obama's daughters are whores.  Melania is a straight up whore.   He would have to pay her to have sex with him, no other way she would have.  

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.12  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.11    4 weeks ago
Melania is a straight up whore. 

Isn't that her choice her body? it's not like selling your daughter for campaign donations. She didn't have a choice. What kind of worthless POS scumbag sells his daughter for money? To a known predator?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2.13  KDMichigan  replied to  loki12 @5.2.12    4 weeks ago
What kind of worthless POS scumbag sells his daughter for money?

Well when it's not your daughter because your wife is actually a man.....jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.2.12    4 weeks ago

President Obama never pimped out his daughters.  Where the fuck did you get that nonsense from?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.2.12    4 weeks ago

76622735_2392888420962939_74268863190133

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.16  loki12  replied to  KDMichigan @5.2.13    4 weeks ago
Well when it's not your daughter

I thought you were talking about Bill and Web Hubble there for a minute.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.17  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.14    4 weeks ago

Yes he did!!!! He pimped his daughter out to Weinstein, 

MALIA OBAMA INTERNED FOR HARVEY WEINSTEIN'S 

Everybody knows what Intern means to a democrat president, Just ask Monica. 

Everyone knew what harvey weinstein was, and obama was in charge of the premier law enforcement agencies as well as the worlds top intelligence agencies.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2.18  KDMichigan  replied to  loki12 @5.2.16    4 weeks ago
I thought you were talking about Bill and Web Hubble there for a minute.

Lets not drag the horse faced Chelsea into this.

256

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.6    4 weeks ago

I appreciate your comment. Thanks Jim. And yes it was a horrible mess but because of the company's layers, he is back in NY, thank goodness. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.14    4 weeks ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.2.17    4 weeks ago

NOPE.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.22  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.21    4 weeks ago

Yes, Pimp daddy sent his daughter to Intern for campaign donations, there is no denying this, it is a documented fact!   What kind of POS sells his daughter to a fat scumbag? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.23  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.20    4 weeks ago
President Obama never pimped out his daughters.  Where the fuck did you get that nonsense from?

President Trump never pimped out Ivanka. Where the fuck did you get that nonsense from?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.2.22    4 weeks ago

Not a word of that is true Loki.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.20    4 weeks ago

Should one assume you have no proof of that wild claim?

Since you posted none...………..

YES!

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.26  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.24    4 weeks ago

Are you claiming that Malia Obama didn't "intern" for Weinstein? of that Weinstein didn't pay Obama for that pleasure?

None of it's a lie!   [Deleted]

[This line of discussion needs to end, now.]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.20    4 weeks ago
Removed for context 

How are you allowed to post this? 

 
 
 
 
loki12
5.2.29  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.28    4 weeks ago

Now, Texan, Facts have no place here, it's feelings that are important. And the current feeling is still butt hurt from trumps win.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.30  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.2.26    4 weeks ago

76622735_2392888420962939_74268863190133

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @5.2.29    4 weeks ago
Now, Texan, Facts have no place here, it's feelings that are important. And the current feeling is still butt hurt from trumps win.

All too true.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.20    4 weeks ago

[Deleted] Summer something I think her name is, who keeps getting threatened.  She was only 13 when that incident occurred.   

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2.33  KDMichigan  replied to  loki12 @5.2.26    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

If tessy's comments regarding Ivanka are off limits, so are similar comments regarding the Obama girls.  You'll notice tessy also has a ticket, from me, in this thread.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.32    4 weeks ago

Gee, if someone is being threatened, they should call the police and report that!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2.36  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.14    4 weeks ago

Obama never gave anyone permission to refer to his daughters as  fine pieces of ass unlike Trump did to Howard Stern in regards to Ivanka.  Obama has never said that if his daughters were not his daughters, he would date them.  The Obama girls never gave daddy lap dances.  Obama has never asked if it was wrong to be sexually attracted to his daughters, like Trump has about Ivanka.  Obama is a fine family man, unlike Trump who has the maternal instincts of a cactus.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    one month ago
We all know that EO's are not laws, and maybe that needs to be addressed but to punish those who trusted in our government, is ethically wrong. 

Unfortunately, it wasn't our government as a whole. It was one man trying to be a hero and build a legacy and that alone. It was an EO and therefore "accepted" only by many. As far as trusting our government, an old saying comes to mind................"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." 

Simon and Garfunkel.

As with Mr. Trump, believe what he DOES and not what he says. Mr. Obama DID what he said he was going to and very few questioned it because, once again, "it felt good" and they possibly knew is wouldn't survive muster. And it didn't. Otherwise Congress would have taken it up instead of just saying "he can do that". They had an inkling that it wouldn't stand muster with their constituents either. It was a hot potato issue and they didn't want to touch it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3    one month ago

Jim,

Have you looked at our past presidents' EO's? And it doesn't matter what his motivation was, it was that the people trusted in our government. If the president says "Come out of the darkness", should they not believe him? And as for that expression, please come on. We have a president who says stuff one day and takes it back the same day. What are we supposed to believe? Double standards don't hold up well with me. I didn't like Obama, and I don't like Trump, but I know when something is wrong, and this is wrong.

Your assumption that these DACA people knew any better is just that, an assumption. They trusted in the process and registered. Now it is a way of hunting them down. It is just unethical and I can't go along with it. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.2  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3    one month ago
Otherwise Congress would have taken it up instead of just saying "he can do that".

Congress is comprised of Aprox. 535 cowards give or take a couple, whose only concern is their next election. they have abdicated to much of their authority to the executive branch. they only bring up the co-equal part when they lose the executive.  And now that they executive has claimed the Judicial also.....we are in trouble if nothing changes.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.3  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.1    one month ago
"Come out of the darkness", should they not believe him?

NO!!!!!! we don't have a monarch, he is the head of the executive. His job is to enforce the law, not pick and choose.

                            "It is just unethical and I can't go along with it."

What was unethical was making a promise you couldn't keep, and didn't have the right to make. Congress makes the laws. The Judicial applies them. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.4  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.1    one month ago

Yep. If DACA is struck down it will more than likely be used as a tool for deportation.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.5  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.4    one month ago

They do not have the legal right to be here, Maybe, Just Maybe if it's struck down the left will compromise on border security. I have yet to see one republican congressman say they want to deport the dreamers, but granting Amnesty again without fixing the problem is the height of ignorance, which is the path the democrats have chosen, again.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.3.3    one month ago

Loki,

The issue then is if we should allow EO's, not DACA and we have since the beginning of this country. I keep showing that over and over. 

 
 
 
MUVA
5.3.7  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.6    one month ago

Are you saying executive orders shouldn’t be allowed or Trump shouldn’t be able to make executive orders that replace or over turn a executive order already in place?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.3.5    one month ago

I am all for border security. Here are my 2 questions

1. Why are these DACA people being used as bargaining chips instead of as human beings.

2. What are we doing with our nothern border, Florida and the gulf?

https://globalnews.ca/news/4922923/canada-us-border-mexico-terrorism-study/

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3.9  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.1    one month ago
And it doesn't matter what his motivation was, it was that the people trusted in our government. If the president says "Come out of the darkness", should they not believe him?

In the words of Renaldus Magnus "Trust but verify.". If they knew anything about the US except their perception of "the system", they should have known that it wouldn't necessarily hold after his term(s) were up. Too much opposition. But, as stated above, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. In this case, to his own peril. How in the world could someone be here for 15,20, even 25 years not know that eventually the chickens would come home to roost and they should pursue citizenship? Boggles the mind. Seems they were waiting for the US to "come around" because they were fed that line without taking the pulse of the country as a whole.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @5.3.7    one month ago
Are you saying executive orders shouldn’t be allowed or Trump shouldn’t be able to make executive orders that replace or over turn a executive order already in place?

Well, historically speaking, they have been allowed and also not overturned by the next president. 

But the legality of them is worth a discussion.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.11  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.6    one month ago

Then why did you say trump over turned most of Obama's EO's?

EO's are necessary for clarification in my opinion, and for direction. Or during a national emergency, Like War, not pretend ones like the war on drugs. if you look at them historically, this is how they were used, along with honoring groups and or parks etc..... It is only recently we started to use them to write/change law.  Again this goes back to Congress only exercising oversight when it is politically expedient. and being to cowardly to vote for something that can be used against them.

When it comes to oversight, it should be real.

Benghazi should have been a twofer, 1 house, 1 Senate on what went wrong.....Period. not a political spectacle. Exactly what corrective actions came out of those hearings? I can't think of one.

The 911 hearings and commission at least had some suggestions on improvement. 

Oversight is no longer about making our country better through holding ourselves accountable, it's about blooding the other side for advantage in the next election cycle, which now never ends. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.9    one month ago
In the words of Renaldus Magnus "Trust but verify.". If they knew anything about the US except their perception of "the system", they should have known that it wouldn't necessarily hold after his term(s) were up.

Now that is funny. You are referring to a comment made to Ronald Regan when dealing with the Russians, as if that was a national policy or that more than half of our electorate wouldn't know about to justify these actions, and I'm am sorry, but they don't. Why would they have known? Heck, I'm pretty well read and I didn't know. 

How in the world could someone be here for 15,20, even 25 years not know that eventually the chickens would come home to roost and they should pursue citizenship?

And that goes to the root of this whole discussion. This is why they didn't apply. They didn't trust the system and guess what, they were right. INS was always deporting and they knew that first hand. Who would have taken such a risk after they had families here?

And guess what? In the past, a huge number of "Americans" came here illegally, including my grandmother. Maybe they should all be deported, too. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.13  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.5    one month ago

And you would deport them. There is only black and white.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3.14  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.12    one month ago

Were you born here? Did she attain citizenship? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then you're good.

And besides, was your grandmother also your mother? Did she bring you with her? If the answer is no, then you have nothing to worry about.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.15  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.8    one month ago
I am all for border security. Here are my 2 questions

1. Why are these DACA people being used as bargaining chips instead of as human beings.

Unfortunately, that is because that's the way the game is played, do you really want to find out if anybody really cares about them in Washington? offer them permanent residency with no path to citizenship. I'm fine with that, they have the right to be here as long as the obey the laws, but nobody gets a voting block.  now they are no longer a bargaining chip for either side.

2. What are we doing with our nothern border, Florida and the gulf?

Not sure what you mean, Sincerely, it's all part of border security, including Visa entries, which we do a terrible job at. I'm all for tagging them with GPS monitors of some kind. obviously not tourist visas, but the rest....Coming here is a privileged, not a right.

You are right to point out the danger of the northern border, we can't risk Prime ministers sneaking in wearing black face. : )

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.14    one month ago

Yes I was born here. No she didn't get citizenship, like many at the time. 

These Daca adults now have children who were born here. By what you just set up, they are citizens, too. 

As for my mother, she was born in a Siberian work camp, escaping the Nazis. She was a British national, by way of her father. When she came here she chose to become a US citizen, but you could do that back then much easier by marrying an American which she did. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.17  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.13    one month ago
And you would deport them.

You have failed again my psychic friend.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.18  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.17    one month ago

So you would let them stay but not give them any rights because you think they would vote Dem.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3.19  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.16    one month ago
These Daca adults now have children who were born here. By what you just set up, they are citizens, too.

Agreed but their parents aren't. Just like the DACA "participants" parents aren't. Not very bright a person who thinks an anchor baby is going to get them home free. If indeed I was looking over my shoulder (supposedly) every day that is the last thing I would do. Have children I may need to leave behind.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.3.20  MUVA  replied to  Ender @5.3.18    one month ago

I would make them permanent residents and not reward them or their parents for breaking the lawn.They would not be allowed to vote.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.3.15    one month ago

The whole northern border is unprotected. I gave you a link to the terrorists that have tried to come over.

But your PM joke was funny. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @5.3.20    one month ago
They would not be allowed to vote.

I think that is the crux of this issue for many. 

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
5.3.23  NV-Robin6  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.19    one month ago

I have no idea what happened to the Nikki Haley argument but as I went to post it, it disappeared and I can't find it anywhere now. So I'll leave you with what I wrote in reply to your nonsense.

LOL.  wow, you guys and your strawman logical fallacies are so pervasive, you really should go back to school to learn what they are and how to avoid them. I never once said she wasn't a natural born citizen, I said she was an anchor baby . Do you know the difference?

Of course I don't believe she's not ineligible to run for the office of the presidency. Why would you even post such drivel? I never eluded to any such bullshit. 

Both her parents were born in India, and were not US citizens till after they immigrated. Obama's mother was a natural born US citizen as much as you hate that fact. He was not only a natural born citizen born in Hawaii, he was not an anchor baby because his mother was also a natural born US citizen. 

If you look at Nikki Haley's bio, she was born in 1972. Her parents first immigrated to Canada and then to the US in 1969. That's 3 years from touch down to birth, when it takes 5 years of being settled in the US at least before they can even meet the eligibility requirements, which makes her an anchor baby. Which is a disgusting term your side came up with to minimize the legality of US natural born children of immigrants. I was pointing out another of your disgusting hypocrisies.

Maybe the left should be calling her out as an anchor baby so you guys get a taste of your own bullshit. Fair play and all that shit.  


Here's the requirement of US citizenship.

Citizenship Eligibility Requirements

In most cases, you must meet the following requirements before you can file an   application for U.S. citizenship :

  • You must be a lawful permanent resident (green card holder).
  • You must be at least 18 years old.
  • You must show that you have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years. (You only need to have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least three years if you are married to a U.S. citizen.
  • You must show that you have lived for at least three months in the same state or USCIS district where you currently live.  

https://www.fileright.com/blog/how-long-does-the-u-s-citizenship-process-take/

 
 
 
MUVA
5.3.24  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.22    one month ago

No the issue is  they came here illegally and shouldn’t be rewarded or be allowed to bring the people that broke the law by bringing them here.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3.25  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  NV-Robin6 @5.3.23    one month ago

The point was, If the laws had been what they were at the time of their births, Neither could run for POTUS or VPOTUS. and yes she was an anchor baby. What got your panties in such a wad?

"Maybe the left should be calling her out as an anchor baby so you guys get a taste of your own bullshit. Fair play and all that shit."

Have at it. It will go nowhere. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.26  Ender  replied to  MUVA @5.3.20    one month ago

I don't think they should be punished for their parents actions either.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.27  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.18    one month ago

I don’t give a shit how they vote, and other than voting, what rights would they lack? Be specific. If they are willing to serve in the military than a path of citizenship would be open. Other than that they are not untitled to citizenship. Period!

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.28  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.26    one month ago

Or rewarded? Right?

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.29  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.21    one month ago

That is why it should be part of border security, even if that border is an airport In Iowa. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.30  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.27    one month ago
but nobody gets a voting block

Sounds like being a little upset they might vote.

There have been cases of some in the military and they still tried to deport them.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.31  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.28    one month ago

Letting people stay in the only home they have ever known is hardly rewarding them.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.32  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.31    one month ago

That isn’t the fault of the people who have done everything right, they aren’t legal! period! Under the law they should be removed, we don’t let drug dealers kids keep the money, we don’t allow the kids of criminals get rewarded for their parents actions. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.33  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.32    one month ago

Drug dealers and money is a strawman argument. has nothing whatsoever to do with DACA.  It is also an attempt to get the words all together. Make some sort of connection.

And again letting people stay in their homes is not a reward.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.34  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.33    one month ago

If they aren’t legally entitled to them....yes it is, your feelings don’t change that fact.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.35  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.34    one month ago

You think all laws have been just? In sentencing or how they are carried out? Or who, when, where was impacted?

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.36  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.35    one month ago

Quit asking stupid questions, those laws were just, if Clinton, Bush, Obama had enforced the laws we wouldn’t have a bunch of illegals whining that the deserve citizenship, they are illegal! Period!

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.37  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.36    one month ago

How is that a stupid question? I noticed you didn't want to answer.

Again, not everything is black and white like you try to make it.

So presidents not enforcing the law? So all the people that came while trump is president, is that him not enforcing the law?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.3.38  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.3.37    4 weeks ago

"So all the people that came while trump is president, is that him not enforcing the law?"

That is the whole crux of the conversation. Mr. Trump decides to follow the law and we have a country full of SCREAMERS because he is. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.39  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.37    4 weeks ago

That is another stupid question, seriously? Of course all the people who came here aren’t trump not following the law, only the ones he didn’t deport because of his feelings! Any other stupid questions? 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.40  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.38    4 weeks ago

I had someone on the right tell me Obama deported more people than trump.

So I guess Obama was following the law more closely than trump.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.41  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.39    4 weeks ago

That makes zero sense. You said Bush, Obama, Clinton, didn't follow the law because they let people come here. Did no people come here under trump? So according to your logic, trump is not following the law either.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.42  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.40    4 weeks ago
I had someone on the right tell me Obama deported more people than trump.

Because 8 years is the same as less than 3, plus Obama didn't have shithead judges in the ninth circuit preventing him at every step from enforcing the law,

        So I guess Obama was following the law more closely than trump.

Now you are starting to embarrass yourself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.43  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @5.3.40    4 weeks ago
I had someone on the right tell me Obama deported more people than trump.

And you were told the truth.

Which is why some people wonder why so many on the left are crying over Trump deporting fewer people, after cheering everything Obama.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.44  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.42    4 weeks ago

Not really. You trapped yourself and are now making excuses.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.45  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.43    4 weeks ago

Unlike the trumpers, a lot of people on the left didn't like everything Obama did.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.46  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.41    4 weeks ago
That makes zero sense. You said Bush, Obama, Clinton, didn't follow the law because they let people come here. Did no people come here under trump?

Yes, but unlike the former Presidents, trump is actually trying to do something about it, What the fuck do you think you are commenting on? 

            So according to your logic, trump is not following the law either.

Once again you have failed to follow even the most basic of thought processes, and wrongly assumed to know what i'm thinking.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.47  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.44    4 weeks ago
So according to your logic, trump is not following the law either.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.48  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.46    4 weeks ago

Obama Signs $600 Million Bill to Boost U.S. Border Security

Today President Obama signed a bill upping funding for border security by $600 million with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano looking on.The money will go for 1,000 new border patrol agents, plus 250 agents for ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, and 250 officers with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency that polices against terror and other threats.

So that is Obama doing nothing about it?

So losing an argument the attacks start and now you are trying to attack my character.

That is pathetic.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.49  loki12  replied to  loki12 @5.3.47    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

[Both of your comments contained personal attacks.  I only issued points for one.  You're welcome.]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.3.50  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.1    4 weeks ago
If the president says "Come out of the darkness", should they not believe him?

Keep in mind, DACA stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals".

For as much as he is praised, Barack Obama basically said.. "you're still illegal as hell, but we're not going to do anything about it.....for now".

it was that the people trusted in our government.

If you have lived in this country for most of your life (like DACA folks have), and you trust the government, you're a bit of an idiot.  The entire Bill of Rights exists to restrain government because the framers knew it can't be trusted.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.51  loki12  replied to  Ender @5.3.48    4 weeks ago

And is an accurate discription based on your posting, you have spent this entire thread telling me what I think and arguing against it, it's obvious how you think based on your posting, you feel they need special protection based on skin color. 

Or don't you like other people telling you what you think? and yet you seem perfectly comfortable doing it yourself?

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.52  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.49    4 weeks ago

I have never once attacked you or went after your character and yet you are still trying to backhandedly call me something I am not.

Shows the true character of some alright.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.53  Ender  replied to  loki12 @5.3.51    4 weeks ago

Twist and spin. First saying I ask stupid questions and now putting words in your mouth.

What the hell do you think DACA is? Basically protection for Dreamers.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.54  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @5.3.53    4 weeks ago
Basically protection for Dreamers.

That would be temporary protection for dreamers.

 
 
 
loki12
5.3.55  loki12  replied to  loki12 @5.3.49    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.3.56  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @5.3.40    4 weeks ago

Nice try. Obama cooked the books on his deportation numbers. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/12/deportations-come-mostly-from-border-dhs-chief-say/

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

“Under the Obama administration , more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.

“Correct,” Mr. Johnson confirmed.

That would mean that in a one-to-one comparison with the final years of the Bush administration, deportations of those same people under Mr. Obama had actually fallen, according to immigration analysts who have studied the data.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

Immigration activists have sharply criticized President Obama for a rising volume of deportations, labeling him the “deporter in chief” and staging large protests that have harmed his standing with some Latinos, a key group of voters for Democrats.

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

The shift in who gets tallied helped the administration look tough in its early years but now may be backfiring politically. Immigration advocates plan protests across the country this week around what they say will be the 2 millionth deportation under Obama — a mark expected to be hit in the next few days. And Democratic strategists fret about a decline in Latino voter turnout for this fall’s election.

Until recent years, mostpeople caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called “voluntary returns,” but which critics derisively termed “catch and release.” Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom have just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category.

Obama wanted to look tough on illegal immigration, he wasn't.

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.57  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3.56    4 weeks ago

First off, I am not the one that made the initial claim so talk to your brethren.

Second, deporting new arrivals is not deporting? He expanded a process started under Bush.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.3.58  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @5.3.37    4 weeks ago

Touche.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.3.59  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @5.3.57    4 weeks ago

He changed the way deportations counted period. If they didn't catch them near the border their chances of being deported were about nill under the Obama administration.

Deporter in Chief. Wonder what leftist campaign propagandist came up with that BS. 

 
 
 
Ender
5.3.60  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3.59    4 weeks ago

Again, according to your link, the change started under Bush.

 
 
 
WallyW
5.4  WallyW  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    one month ago

“The whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits,” the chief justice said. “Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport the people.”

but to punish those who trusted in our government, is ethically wrong.

I  agree.

Since they are not likely to be deported...put the  Dreamers on a path to citizenship

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.1  Ender  replied to  WallyW @5.4    one month ago

We finally agree on something.

Although I wouldn't put it past the trump administration to deport them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @5.4.1    one month ago
Although I wouldn't put it past the trump administration to deport them.

Do you think Trump is jealous of his predecessor's "Deporter-in-Chief" status?

Because the numbers prove that Obama is still King of the Deporters.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.3  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @5.4.2    one month ago

Yet somehow nothing is ever good enough for some.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.4.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @5.4.3    one month ago
Yet somehow nothing is ever good enough for some.

Interesting.

In a bizarre way, because that answer is totally unrelated to my post.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.5  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @5.4.4    one month ago

Happens to me all the time...

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @5.4.5    one month ago

I'll take your evasiveness as a signal you won't be answering my question.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.4.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @5.4    4 weeks ago

Sorry I missed this Wally. I totally agree with you. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.4.8  Jack_TX  replied to  WallyW @5.4    4 weeks ago
Since they are not likely to be deported...put the  Dreamers on a path to citizenship

I'm in. 

Which of our illustrious elected servants has a plan for this?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.4.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.8    4 weeks ago
Which of our illustrious elected servants has a plan for this?

Neither. No plan, just a lot of jaw exercising and drum beating with each other.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration in its efforts to shut down a program  
of course they will... what obama did was unconstitutional. he even said so himself.
In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."   Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted

say goodbye to daca - it is fixin to be burnt toast and in the garbage where it belongs.

have a great day :)

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

XDm9mm
Just Jim NC TttH
zuksam
lib50
Raven Wing
Phaedrus
Ender
Ed-NavDoc
MUVA
Ozzwald

KDMichigan
Sean Treacy
arkpdx


34 visitors