On like Donkey Kong: Obama Said to Plan Moves to Shield 5 Million Immigrants

This argument gets trotted out each time any sort of benefit is proposed for undocumented. Those who enter legally enter with Legal Permanent Residence (LPR or green card) are put on a 5 year pathway to citizenship (3 years if married to a US Citizen) if they can speak/read/understand English and pass a civics exam (minimum 20 year path if they can't do English). On the other hand, those who will benefit from this proposed expansion of deferred action for parents of US citizens and individuals who missed the initial DACA cut-off will be given work authorization. These beneficiaries will not be given LPR or put on the pathway to citizenship so they do not get the same sort of status, path to citizenship, or due process rights that people who entered legally have gotten.

I think it reflect poorly on the character of your parents that they would begrudge those parents of United States Citizens or those kids who were to young to choose work authorization in this country. It shows a deep lack of compassion for their fellow United States citizens as well as children. It also makes me wonder if this sort of dissatisfaction extends to other aspects of their lives. e.g. wages of others who may or might not have worked as hard or are as educated as they are.

 

If you want to get a quick non-partisan primer on the legality of a hypothetical executive policy change check out what the Congressional Research Service has to say:

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43782.pdf

Basically there are tons of methods which the executive branch has used in the past to defer enforcement or grant parole to stop them from being deported. The executive branch also enjoys wide leeway in determining who receives work authorization because there are no express conditions in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Deferred Action has been given at least as far back as the 1970s so it isn't some brand new thing. CRS does point out that the executive branch could run afoul if they went too far and give the examples of giving work authorization to everyone and/or deferring removal of everyone.

 

Obama disagrees with you:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9ZG0YhJyL3k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Everyone instinctively knows this is a violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land. He said it himself not long ago. He has no authorization from Congress to issue work permits and SSNs to illegals.

Obama could say he's not going to prosecute murders of less than two people. Is that prosecutorial discretion?

 

I find it endearing as well as slightly perplexing that you believe everything Obama or any other president says. I trust CRS much more than I trust Obama and even if I didn't, nothing Obama says in that video is contradicted by what he says now. I have provided a transcript for ease of use so let's break down his different claims:

He says that he cannot suspend deportations. This claim is 100% true based on the mutability of language. He cannot say for example stop a judge from issuing a deportation order for someone who is inadmissible for whatever reason. He can however choose not to actually effectuate the deportation for whatever reason (e.g. statelessness, prosecutorial witness, or deferred action). Similarly he is still correct that he cannot ignore congressional mandates because the phrase itself "congressional mandates" is broad and unspecific. This is the problem with video sources, Commodore, people (especially politicians) are more able to use tricks of language and allowed to be more unspecific. Without a transcript it becomes hard to actually understand how unspecific and unclear they are actually being. I'm not saying that written comments are that much better, but at least when you see it in writing you can know you are being hoodwinked or that the speaker is leaving a bunch of wiggle room.

As CRS explains, there are 3 areas where he can operate in a constitutional manner:

1) The executive branch can act where it has expressly been delegated authority so long as it does not run afoul of statutory limitations (of which there are few).
2) The executive branch can exercise prosecutorial discretion so long as it does not go as far as to abdicate its statutory duty which has been defined as literally doing nothing. And, interestingly enough, where congress does nothing it actually increases the likelihood of the court finding large exercises of prosecutorial discretion to be constitutional so because of inaction.
3) The executive branch can interpret its own regulatory authority but its interpretation must be reasonable, and not fall under the "major policy" exception to Chevron deference. So long as his crafted policy does not fall under the constraints mentioned by CRS then it is perfectly fine.

Everyone who actually has taken at least one government course or some own personal reading on the subject and paid even a modicum of attention has know that this is not likely to be any such violation because of how much leeway the executive branch has and has had since the creation of the administrative state.

In the brief clip you provided, Obama does not say anything remotely related to issue work permits or SSNs to undocumented people. Even if you aren't just putting words in his mouth and you are simply expressing your analysis, you are still most likely incorrect. Here is what CRS has to say about work authorization:

Yes, yes it would be prosecutorial discretion. The federal government chooses not to prosecute murder all the time instead leaving it up to the states. It also chooses not to prosecute crimes that state won't or cannot prosecute. What is your point?

 

President Reagan and President Bush are not impressed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11

 

This is a contradiction. Obviously not the same thing as they explain

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order

No honest person would claim those actions are comparable to what Obama is doing. Congress has passed no amnesty.


obamas-amnesty-will-add-as-many-foreign-workers-as-new-jobs-since-2009

 

In one scenario Congress passed amnesty and failed to address how to handle children/spouses who were separated from their parents/spouses. In the other scenario Congress did not pass amnesty.

Do you not see how one is executing a law passed by Congress and one is not?

 

That's the most Hispanic makeup job I've ever seen. Senor Obama.

 

This is not an unforeseen consequence of a passed law (it was in 1986). It is decreeing a law into existence. Obama is not trying to preserve families split by a law.

Where do you come up with this dishonest crap?

 

This article from New Republic addresses your question:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120334/obama-immigration-order-legal-bush-and-reagans-were

 

These people don't care for latino families. They are politicians, who are all charlatans at heart. This is about votes. Who do you think these people are going to vote for once they are natuaralized lol ? If they were all such humanitarians they would have been making more noise when the Israelis were bombing women and children in Gaza.

 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GVYfPKzZY9Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You realize nothing in these executive orders creates new citizens, right?

 

Yes. Police departments regularly prioritize and de-prioritize how they will prosecute crimes and what crimes they focus on. Rudy G's NY policies, for example, were an executive change in how to police the community, both what to focus police resources on and what to not focus on. Some DAs and PDs emphasize drug crimes; others ignore them. Some focus on speeding tickets, others don't, etc. Murder would be no different.

Your example, while extreme, is exactly the definition of prosecutorial discretion.

 

So much for "leading from behind."

 

"If you like your landscaping crew, you can keep them"

 

"Pass a bill"

 

That's Reggie Loves job