Obama immigration executive order watch party

[ksen]

Hi guys! :wave:

Will it be today?

Honestly I wish he'd just do whatever it is he's going to do so I don't have to see anymore stories speculating about when he's going to do it.

Also, we can discuss whether or not an executive order on immigration is constitutional or not.

I read a story today that described how the law is written in such a way that gives the executive branch wide latitude in how to handle illegal immigrants that have not been convicted of a crime or suspected of terrorism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Doesn't the Bush-Obama Constitutional Amendment specifically state that whatever the President does is constitutional by definition?

 

[KeepTalking]

Also, we can discuss whether or not an executive order on immigration is constitutional or not.

That one's easy, it's constitutional when white Republican presidents do it (Reagan, Bush I), but unconstitutional if black Democratic presidents do it.

 

[ksen]

drink!

 

[TV and credit cards]

Doesn't the Bush-Obama Constitutional Amendment specifically state that whatever the President does is constitutional by definition?

Isn't there a Nixon quote in there?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Doesn't the Bush-Obama Constitutional Amendment specifically state that whatever the President does is constitutional by definition?

Isn't there a Nixon quote in there?

No, he accepted that what he did was unconstitutional and resigned as opposed to fighting the matter. He could have just done a "Fuck you, it's legal because ... because fuck you, that's why" that the current guys are doing, but he decided to accept his subservience to the Constitution as opposed to the Constitution's subservience to him and got run out of town.

 

[dismal]

Also, we can discuss whether or not an executive order on immigration is constitutional or not.

That one's easy, it's constitutional when white Republican presidents do it (Reagan, Bush I), but unconstitutional if black Democratic presidents do it.

This noted constitutional scholar disagrees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehH8KMIxntQ

 

[KeepTalking]

That one's easy, it's constitutional when white Republican presidents do it (Reagan, Bush I), but unconstitutional if black Democratic presidents do it.

This noted constitutional scholar disagrees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehH8KMIxntQ

Can you direct me to the part of that collection of sound bites where the constitutional scholar recommends impeachment, or lawsuits, to correct this issue?

 

[dismal]

This noted constitutional scholar disagrees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehH8KMIxntQ

Can you direct me to the part of that collection of sound bites where the constitutional scholar recommends impeachment, or lawsuits, to correct this issue?

Can you direct me to the part where anyone claimed anything of that sort?

Perhaps you can respond to the actual comments of the noted Constitutional scholar.

Do you think he's ignorant? Misinformed? Lying? Or do you just dismiss him because you're a racist?

 

[KeepTalking]

Can you direct me to the part of that collection of sound bites where the constitutional scholar recommends impeachment, or lawsuits, to correct this issue?

Can you direct me to the part where anyone claimed anything of that sort?

It is what the GOP is currently threatening. Are you saying that the sound bites you linked to are actually a false equivalence since the constitutional scholar in question does not make those kind of recommendations?

Perhaps you can respond to the actual comments of the noted Constitutional scholar.

At about 53 seconds the constitutional scholar mentions the notion that a president can suspend deportations through executive order is not true, in the following soundbites he mentions that the president cannot change the laws unilaterally. Is the president currently talking about suspending deportation, or changing the laws? If not, once again, we have a false equivalence.

Do you think he's ignorant? Misinformed? Lying? Or do you just dismiss him because you're a racist?

No, I think he is taken out of context, and being made to look like he is saying the opposite of what he is planning to do. A thorough examination of what he was saying reveals that such is not the case. We will know for sure once he actually makes those executive orders, but one thing that is for sure is that he does have the power to determine how his administration will implement the laws that are in place.

 

[ksen]

The law gives the Executive branch wide latitude in whether or not to pursue deportation in most cases. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

[dismal]

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. 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.” (3/28/11)

So, this is out of context?

Or just wrong and misguided?

Or just a lie?

Or just something we should ignore because we are racists?

 

[ksen]

Which mandate do you think he'll be violating?

 

[ksen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/

"What I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system work better, even as I continue to work with Congress," Obama said.

Sounds like he understands there are things under the law he can do as President.

The Roberts Court Has Already Said That Obama Has The Power To Issue His Immigration Order

 

[KeepTalking]

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. 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.” (3/28/11)

So, this is out of context?

When it is broken up into several short sound bites, and sprinkled in with other short sound bites, yes, those sound bites can easily be characterized as out of context.

Or just wrong and misguided?

Or just a lie?

Or just something we should ignore because we are racists?

Or, as it actually is, consistent with what he seems to be proposing, which does not appear to involve suspending deportation, or ignoring the current laws altogether.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. 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.” (3/28/11)

So, this is out of context?

Or just wrong and misguided?

Or just a lie?

Or just something we should ignore because we are racists?

It is a strawman as Obama is looking to prioritize certain deportations over others. Get the violent ones through the system first. He isn't suspending anything.

 

[Valjean]

Obama's currently maintaining that although an executive order isn't the 'proper' mechanism to accomplish this, the proper mechanism is currently broken. If congress is not functioning an exigent circumstance override is justified.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Obama's currently maintaining that although an executive order isn't the 'proper' mechanism to accomplish this, the proper mechanism is currently broken. If congress is not functioning an exigent circumstance override is justified.

Exactly. It is with great reluctance that he has agreed to this calling. He loves democracy. He loves the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, he will lay down the powers you have given him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obama's currently maintaining that although an executive order isn't the 'proper' mechanism to accomplish this, the proper mechanism is currently broken. If congress is not functioning an exigent circumstance override is justified.

Exactly. It is with great reluctance that he has agreed to this calling. He loves democracy. He loves the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, he will lay down the powers you have given him.

His power is not absolute and can be immediately overridden by actual legislation from Congress or by the next President. The Republican had 2001 to 2006 to do something. They held a majority in both House and the White House for most of that period. Yet W couldn't get legislation passed for immigration. Republicans can't pass an immigration bill because the pragmatic Republicans are being blocked by the Leadership and the crackpots. A bipartisan bill could pass the House, but the Republican leadership won't have it.

So Obama really has to do something because the Republicans won't pass anything when the they do or don't have power.

 

[dismal]

So, this is out of context?

Or just wrong and misguided?

Or just a lie?

Or just something we should ignore because we are racists?

It is a strawman as Obama is looking to prioritize certain deportations over others. Get the violent ones through the system first. He isn't suspending anything.

So why did the noted constitutional scholar claimed he a had already done everything he could do after "carving out the DREAM Act folks"?

“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they’ve allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option. … What I’ve said is there is a there’s a path to get this done, and that’s through Congress.”

“We are a nation of immigrants. … But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own[.]”

Just wrong and misguided?

Just a lie?

Just ignore him because he's black?