"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President." -- Barack Hussein Kardashian, March 2011
There have been zero changes made to immigration law. Constitutionally, the legislative branch creates/passes/changes laws, and the executive branch ensures laws are "faithfully" executed. DHS is exercising prosecutorial discretion in prioritizing which illegal immigrants to go after. The illegal immigrants helped by this action are still very much in violation of the law, but punishment/deportation is being deferred for the time being. Of course, I'm well aware of the fact that it's just a semantic argument...a loophole exploited to pursue an agenda. However, the great thing about this country is that we have a judicial branch to determine whether exercising such "prosecutorial discretion" can still be considered "faithful execution" of the law.
Right...I'm sure you'll mention that to the next cop who lets you off with a warning for speeding. Like it or not, selective enforcement is exercised everywhere at all levels of government. Comparing it to dictatorial edict is downright ridiculous. Personally, I think Napolitano overstepped her bounds by basically laying out such specific directions. However, she could easily say they were simply "guidelines" for discretionary/deferred enforcement against young illegals who're in violation of immigration law sans mens rea.
Nope. I'm comparing the Secretary of Homeland Security to the local police chief that asks subordinates to exercise discretion. You're comparing the president to an 18th century monarch. Which of these two comparisons appears more ludicrous to you?
Probably would have supported Plessy v. Ferguson through and through. Laws are subject to interpretation when their improper execution violates the spirit wherein they were first crafted or when, sensibly, they don't make any sense anymore. The man who happens to have a lot of discretion when it comes to this is the one Americans rightfully placed their trust in, and when it comes, given voter demographics, he will be back.
Good for you. You're a stickler for the letter of the law. Obama's clearly a lawless tyrant for appointing a cabinet member who wants her subordinates to exercise discretion. Did you even read the memo? I'll concede the fact parts of it certainly read like "orders," but it clearly states that ICE agents should use their judgment to "ensure enforcement resources are not expended on low priority cases." I'm sure the fact that ICE agents have been exercising discretionary enforcement for the past several decades means all previous presidents were lawless tyrants as well.
The memo really only says they'll allow illegals to apply for a work permit...but I do agree it's an overreach. I'm not denying that there's an clear agenda behind the memo. I just think the dictatorship comparisons are ridiculous.
Even Murdoch likes it. LOL Joint Statement of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman & CEO of News Corporation; Klaus Kleinfeld, CEO of Alcoa Inc.; Philippe Dauman, President & CEO of Viacom; and Kevin Ryan, CEO of Gilt Groupe: “In the face of Congressional deadlock over immigration reform, the Partnership for New York City applauds the Obama Administration for acting to protect immigrant children from the threat of deportation. We hope this prompts Congress to reach agreement on common sense immigration policies that reflect American labor market needs and American values. Young people who had no choice over coming to this country, have grown up here and now want to become productive members of our society should not be treated like criminals.” The Partnership for New York City and the Partnership for a New American Economy released a study on the negative impact of current U.S. immigration policies on businesses. http://www.pfnyc.org/pressReleases/2012/st-2012-0615-DREAM Act.html interesting reaction from the free-marketers on the forum. We hate arbitrary laws that hold the economy back UNLESS---?
Did a bit of digging into immigration law: - Immigration and Customs Enforcement is granted prosecutorial discretion to use their "best judgment" in deciding which cases to prioritze - On a case-by-case basis, the ICE office can legally grant "deferred action" status by either not executing an individual's order of removal or by not putting the individual into removal proceedings - Illegal immigrants that have been granted "deferred action" status as well those who have received orders of removal awaiting deportation can legally apply for a work permit while still in the country. Interesting... I guess the only question is, did Napolitano do anything unconstitutional by giving ICE those guidelines (or orders) on how they should exercise prosecutorial discretion?
