DACA expires today - Good job Tards

[jem]

I am still amazed that the left did not take the deal Trump put on the table.
Is there any other conclusion other than the dems in congress prefer a political issue over the fate of 1.8 million DACA people?

Is there any other conclusion but that the democratic party does not really care about people? they just use issues for political gain?

I didn't say the Court will overturn DACA, although I think it would if given the opportunity. I said the Court will uphold Trump ending it. I don't know if DACA was enacted through a formal rulemaking procedure or if it was just another example of Obama acting like some African dictator. Either way, it can be ended by Trump. It's just a question of the hoops he has to jump through.

We really can't thank the open borders crowd enough for opposing Trump on his idiotic and traitorous amnesty. You may well have ensured his reelection. MAGA!

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Is there any other conclusion but that the democratic party does not really care about people? they just use issues for political gain?

There is that for sure, but........Trumps offer clearly flushed out the unmentionable which is that this is not just about taking care of the kids who came here due to no fault of their own. They want to keep the borders porous and they want chain migration. Rightly or wrongly so, the public supports a solution for daca people but overwhelmingly is against chain migration. Trumps offer flushed them out bigtime. They want the daca kids taken care of and then they want daca 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 as you take care of each successive wave of newcomers. Oh, and they want the newcomers to bring their cousins too.

 

[UsualName]

I am not convinced that he has that power. "Ability" and "Constitutionality" are two very different things in the short run. I am not convinced he does not either. The Constitution gives the president a leadership role in the conduct of foreign affairs. Yet, Congress has a role too so they have to duke it and make their cases politically and judicially. It is the same with war making powers.

The power to make immigration law, however, is solidly with Congress. The president arguably has some emergency powers of a very short term nature where "immigration" presents as "invasion" and some discretion in the enforcement based on resources but is not able to declare a class of immigrants as being not subject to enforcement contrary to what Congress has already enacted. Your ilk like to argue that Congress needs to pass legislation to straighten this all out. The reality is that there is already legislation on the books. The law can be changed of course, and Congress either does or does not do that. If they do nothing, then the current law stands.

It’s not about the president making the law, it’s about enforcing the law. Even though the president certainly has a major role in making the law being that they sign the laws into place. Whether foreign or domestic policy.

There are any number of reasons that can be given for deference. For example, with Russia Trump is illegitimately claiming the sanctions would have little to no impact and Russia is already suffering the desired impact therefore in deference he has delayed them, or deferred.

Another legitimate reason for deference is prioritizing. No one will argue there is not enough resources to enforce every law on the books so the government prioritizes how the law is enforced all the time. For illegal immigration they prioritized criminals. This is called deference and why the first word in the DACA acronym is deferred. It is not a coincidence.

I guess the real question here in comparing the two is which has corrupt or criminal intent? DACA really did lead to the deportations of record numbers of illegal immigrants. It was part of a larger clean up of the process and works well in a number of ways. The sanctions on the other hand seem done out of pure corruption. This is a president who has benefited from Russian interference and had associates of his campaign and administration associated with Russian corruption.

If you’re being honest with yourself DACA benefitted America while the Russian sanctions deference was a corruption.

 

[UsualName]

what does deferential powers mean?
please define how you are using it within penumbras of the constitution.

There’s a machine called google where you can type questions into and get answers. I am not google.

 

[UsualName]

There are two separate issues here. Don't confuse them. One, is Obama's policy not to enforce part of the immigration law. What if Trump decided not to enforce the capital gains tax? Would that an exercise in presidential discretion that the Court should avoid interfering in?

I have to admit that I am not sure of the answer. On the one hand, it seems plainly obvious that the constitutional lawmaking power is vested in the congress and the president cannot therefore unilaterally modify statue law. On the other hand, do we really want the unelected Judicial Branch dictating how the president makes policy? Weren't we angry about that when the courts interfered with Trump's muslim ban?

Since the Nixon resignation, where one of the complaints concerned his not spending appropriated funds, it has been the accepted practice that presidents lack the authority to unilaterally rewrite existing statue law. Obama thumbed his nose at that very useful precedent.

The other issue though is whether Trump can overturn Obama's DACA policy. It seems beyond dispute that he can.

First, I agree Trump can cancel DACA. However, there are legitimate steps he has to take to be lawful.

Next, why can a president defer on some laws and not others, it’s really about the reasons. Is there enough resources to enforce the capital gains tax, probably not. The IRS probably prioritizes larger returns and not smaller ones.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

It’s not about the president making the law, it’s about enforcing the law. Even though the president certainly has a major role in making the law being that they sign the laws into place. Whether foreign or domestic policy.

.

Correct. The president cannot make law- ie. place a category of immigrants beyond enforcement by his order rather than just lack of resources and correct again, it is about enforcing the law. The president is required by the constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed- no provision saying if he agrees with them.

I have responded to the road that you want to go down in regard to so-called deferential powers. The concept of deferential powers comes into play in areas of concurrent jurisdiction such as foreign affairs and war power where congress has powers but has historically or for practical purposes deferred to the president to take the lead while they reserve their power to oversee and intervene if necessary.

But as I stated, immigration and naturalization is not an area of concurrent jurisdiction. The power to establish who is here legally and who is not, is assigned to Congress, period. The president does not have concurrent jurisdiction on that with the exception that he can make a short term case for national security which congress can and the courts can either allow or oversee. Obama did not act on daca under that power. To the contrary, he asserts that they are not a threat.

Your crabwalk assertion that a president is involved in making legislation because he signs of vetoes bills is neither here nor there in regard to the issue of whether he can make law without congress approving. He can't. He did you not read Professor Obama's clarification of this?

And yes, I know that Dufus was actually just an instructor rather than professor. Whatever.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Next, why can a president defer on some laws and not others, it’s really about the reasons. Is there enough resources to enforce the capital gains tax, probably not. The IRS probably prioritizes larger returns and not smaller ones.

You are missing the point- ie. practicing protective ignorance.

A president or any executive gets to set priorities but cannot do so because they unilaterally dislike the law.

A president who does not enforce a law due to priority reasons needs to pass the straight-face test by advising the oversight committee in congress- via his cabinet people- and asking for additional resources. Did Obama ever say "we want to deport all illegals, including those who came as children but you are not giving us the resources.? No, is the answer. Not surprisingly, someone like Trump might suddenly decide that he does have the resources to start deporting them and therefore does not need to prioritize. Hope that works for you. He is apparently prepared to be more productive than Obama was.

 

[UsualName]

Correct. The president cannot make law- ie. place a category of immigrants beyond enforcement by his order rather than just lack of resources and correct again, it is about enforcing the law. The president is required by the constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed- no provision saying if he agrees with them.

I have responded to the road that you want to go down in regard to so-called deferential powers. The concept of deferential powers comes into play in areas of concurrent jurisdiction such as foreign affairs and war power where congress has powers but has historically or for practical purposes deferred to the president to take the lead while they reserve their power to oversee and intervene if necessary.

But as I stated, immigration and naturalization is not an area of concurrent jurisdiction. The power to establish who is here legally and who is not, is assigned to Congress, period. The president does not have concurrent jurisdiction on that with the exception that he can make a short term case for national security which congress can and the courts can either allow or oversee. Obama did not act on daca under that power. To the contrary, he asserts that they are not a threat.

Your crabwalk assertion that a president is involved in making legislation because he signs of vetoes bills is neither here nor there in regard to the issue of whether he can make law without congress approving. He can't. He did you not read Professor Obama's clarification of this?

And yes, I know that Dufus was actually just an instructor rather than professor. Whatever.

Your concurrent jurisdiction argument is completely fabricated. The president executed the laws, hence the executive branch. The president has deference in the execution for a number of reasons.

Now, there are legitimate issues within DACA you have not addressed but don’t expect me to do your homework for you.

 

[UsualName]

You are missing the point- ie. practicing protective ignorance.

A president or any executive gets to set priorities but cannot do so because they unilaterally dislike the law.

A president who does not enforce a law due to priority reasons needs to pass the straight-face test by advising the oversight committee in congress- via his cabinet people- and asking for additional resources. Did Obama ever say "we want to deport all illegals, including those who came as children but you are not giving us the resources.? No, is the answer. Not surprisingly, someone like Trump might suddenly decide that he does have the resources to start deporting them and therefore does not need to prioritize. Hope that works for you. He is apparently prepared to be more productive than Obama was.

Now you’re barking up the right tree. Drop the concurrent argument and look at intent and outcome. Apply both to DACA and the Russian sanctions and you will find your criminal.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Drop the concurrent argument and look at intent and outcome.

Ahh. I don't think so. You are asking to drop the Constitution. You are giving examples of foreign affairs where the constitution gives concurrent powers to both the executive and legislative branches. BUT the power to set the legal status of immigrants is with Congress, not the president. Too complex for your binary mind.

Perhaps this is getting to be a bit repetitive, eh? We got it though. You support strong executive powers, even to the point of being unconstitutional under Obama but will cry impeachment if Trump does it.