What I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do....the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, “you have to enforce these laws.” They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. (3/16/14)
He is still constrained. Unless Congress passes a new law, this delay is just a temporary delay. It is not permanent. It is not a road to citizenship. Those changes will take an act of Congress. All Obama can do is say to a particular group of people, in effect, "You may still be deported eventually, but you are not the focus of our efforts. If you register so that you'll be at risk of being more easily identified when a Republican president assumes what maxparrish would call the powers of an emperor, then you don't have to worry about being deported right away so long as you pay taxes and stay out of trouble."
Would you explain how, under Obama's new theory of selective governance, he is "constrained"? If he had suspend deportations for 5 million, why not most of the 11 or 12 million? It he can issue green cards to some, why not all? If he can refuse to apprehend border crossers, or tell the border officers to withdraw, then how "constrained" is he? The ONLY thing he may not have the power to do is grant citizenship, although short of impeachment who is going to stop him? You don't get it; for the first time in history we have a President that is challenging the very basis of separation of powers and unless the courts step in you are seeing a new kind of one man rule (the hallmark of the death of all Republics).
And Poo. This is not a temporary delay, its an indefinite suspension of deportation for 5 million illegals, and the granting of green cards so as to further 'legitimize' their self-imporation. Whether or not they will become permanent is theoretically an open issue BUT it likely will be. So "All Obama can do is to say to a particular group of people is "Contrary to what I said previously, I can and have shielded you from deportation in spite of the fact you broke the law. And as a reward, I will be giving you a green card so you can sink more roots into this country, heck, you even now qualify for many welfare services."
Obama has already admitted one would have to be Emperor to ignore the law
He's not ignoring any law. Congress is the one that says he can only deport a small percentage of illegals in a given year. Congress is the one that instructed the president to prioritize what groups should be deported. Obama is just going along with what Congress said.
He is certainly ignoring the intent of the law, and refusing to faithfully execute it. Although I already exploded your fantasy earlier, this has nothing to do with "prioritization" (which does not require legalization) NOR Obama's merely carrying out the will of Congress.
And try as I might, I see nothing in the 1996 law that instructs the President to deport only a small number every year. As you made that claim without support, please provide that clause. In the meantime, please be aware that no one, till Obama's change of views, thought a President would intentionally foster illegal immigration by invoking 'prosecutoral discretion' of the attorney general so as to shield illegals. The law defines what is illegal and deportable, and excepting for prosecutoral discretion on individual and special circumstances, it intends (as happens in all nations) that illegals be deported. Congress and public understanding on this issue is not in dispute.
Yet we now have an attorney general and president that has refused to faithfully carry out the law's intent. Hence, either one of them is worthy of impeachment.
- he has already demonstrated his own actions to be lawless.
You made that up, right?
No more than I made up the numerous times it has been documented in Obamacare and other actions.
And he has already demonstrated that he is a prolific liar and enemy of the Republic...
Again, you're just making that up.
When a President intentionally choses to side will illegal aliens over the American people and undermine the intent of the law passed by the people's Congress and signed by President Clinton, you are any enemy of the Republic.
In any case, none of your quotations support your thesis.
Wrong. But then, I am not sure you understand my thesis.
I guess you figure Reagan was the enemy, too, huh?
