Executive action

[El_Machinae]

The illusion is a patrolled border. For purely political reasons, it is porous as a sieve. The human smuggling is bad enough, but contraband is also getting through. On that point the Republicans have a completely legitimate gripe.

So, now it's a fully partisan position? There's an idea that the Democrat administration pisses Border Security budget money away and don't strive to spend it in an efficient way to stop migration through the border?

That's laughable. The border will always be porous, you can reduce the flow using an exponential increase in spending. It's the nature of such things. So, the question is more 'how much money do you want to spend?'. The idea that one administration could be vastly better at this task is a pipedream, given equal budgets.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Link to video.


"What you're not paying attention to, is the fact that I just took an action to change the law" (To thunderous applause from the crowd)
--Emperor Obama

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"I just posted something to change my postcount"
--random forum persona

 

[Kaitzilla]

Link to video.

Which branch of government is allowed to change the law?

Spoiler :

We shouldn't let anyone graduate high school who gets the answer wrong.

Spoiler :

Congress!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which branch of government is allowed to change the law?

Spoiler :

We shouldn't let anyone graduate high school who gets the answer wrong.

Spoiler :

Congress!

Which branch of government is tasked with prioritizing the enforcement of laws within the budget allotted for the purpose?

 

[JohnRM]

Congress is incompetent and corrupt. The alternative to executive action is no action. Which is preferable? Executive action may do some good, it might not, but I know that inaction will do nothing. I have no problem with autocratic rule, if the alternative is this Congress. I look forward to the Republican takeover, in the new year.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Congress is incompetent and corrupt. The alternative to executive action is no action. Which is preferable? Executive action may do some good, it might not, but I know that inaction will do nothing. I have no problem with autocratic rule, if the alternative is this Congress. I look forward to the Republican takeover, in the new year.

So that the stream of incredibly stupid bills that has been dying in the senate can reach the president's desk and die there instead? How is that an improvement?

 

[JohnRM]

President Obama's time is nearly up. If Congress sends bill after bill to his desk, then he becomes the problem and he has no excuse for autocratic action.

 

[Kaitzilla]

So that the stream of incredibly stupid bills that has been dying in the senate can reach the president's desk and die there instead? How is that an improvement?

Because that's how constitutional government works.

Change is supposed to be difficult.
Especially when it is controversial.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So there's nothing in place that allows Obama to do this and he's the first to do it?

 

[Kaitzilla]

So there's nothing in place that allows Obama to do this and he's the first to do it?

Indeed.
I'll let President Obama (2011) explain it.


Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because that's how constitutional government works.

Change is supposed to be difficult.
Especially when it is controversial.

I understand that...I just don't see this as a change worth looking forward to. Where the stupid bills go to die doesn't really make much difference. A congress spending its time on writing something other than doomed stupid bills would be something to look forward to...but it ain't comin'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indeed.
I'll let President Obama (2011) explain it.

Actually, that's an explanation of why he can't do something else. If that worked I would be able to explain the physics that prevents me from levitating as a way to get out of cooking Thanksgiving dinner.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Congress is incompetent and corrupt. The alternative to executive action is no action. Which is preferable? Executive action may do some good, it might not, but I know that inaction will do nothing. I have no problem with autocratic rule, if the alternative is this Congress. I look forward to the Republican takeover, in the new year.

Perhaps you are right.
I hate Congress more than anybody.

Time to start getting inventive.
The next Republican President should order the IRS not to prosecute those who fail to pay the Obamacare Tax Penalty for not having health insurance.
Instead, due to limited resources, he/she should have them focus on corporations who fail to pay their taxes.

 

[JohnRM]

Perhaps you are right.
I hate Congress more than anybody.

Time to start getting inventive.
The next Republican President should order the IRS not to prosecute those who fail to pay the Obamacare Tax Penalty for not having health insurance.
Instead, due to limited resources, he/she should have them focus on corporations who fail to pay their taxes.

You cannot possibly fail to pay the tax penalty. It is automatically deducted from your income. In order to NOT pay it, you would have to pay no taxes at all, which would be a much larger issue. Though, if Congress fails to act to fix the problems with the healthcare law and the problem becomes that extreme, then executive action may be the only alternative available to the President, whoever it turns out to be.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I take it from the cop-out, "indeed" means "yes there is and no he isn't"?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I take it from the cop-out, "indeed" means "yes there is and no he isn't"?

That would be correct.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Actually, that's an explanation of why he can't do something else. If that worked I would be able to explain the physics that prevents me from levitating as a way to get out of cooking Thanksgiving dinner.

I need you to explain this to me.

I'm pretty sure Emperor Obama said:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

And I'm pretty sure President Obama said:

Well first of all, Temporary Protective Status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who were fleeing persecution in their countries.
Or there is some emergency situation in their native land that require them to come to the United States.
So it would not be appropriate to use that primarily for example because they were looking for economic opportunity.

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, and I know everyone here at Bel is studying hard because we've got 3 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 to ignore through executive order those Congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President...

Are there different flavors of deportation that I'm not understanding?
The two Obamas seem to be contradicting themselves to me.

 

[Kaitzilla]

You cannot possibly fail to pay the tax penalty. It is automatically deducted from your income...

Wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/penalty.asp

According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I need you to explain this to me.

Are their different flavors of deportation that I'm not understanding?
The two Obamas seem to be contradicting themselves to me.

Obama said he cannot change the law to make people citizens. He can't. To become citizens they will have to follow the procedures defined by law. And law is made by congress, not him.

He then said he would direct enforcement towards people who really need to be deported, so people who there is really no sensible reason to deport don't have to be afraid they will be deported. And he did. Because he can. Enforcement of law is the job of the executive branch. He is the chief executive. He sets the priorities.

But I'm guessing from the way you accurately comment on most issues of how the government works that your refusal to acknowledge this is intentional and can't be resolved by explaining it.