If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Looks like he doesn't really care either way and it shows. Can't tell if he's doing this to feed meat to his base or because his cabinet pushed for it.
Obama said on numerous events he didn't have the authority to do what he in the end did. Trump has thrown the ball back to Congress where Obama said it needed to be done. They have six months to get something done.
Trump says that Obama said that Presidents don't have the authority to create or remove law, so he removed the law that Obama created. Am I following correctly?
Trump says that Obama said that Presidents don't have the authority to create or remove law, so he removed the law that Obama created. Am I following correctly?
Obama said on numerous events he didn't have the authority to do what he in the end did. Trump has thrown the ball back to Congress where Obama said it needed to be done. They have six months to get something done.
The Executive branch has a significant degree of discretion when it comes to the prioritization of the limited resources needed to enforce legislation. DACA did not "legalize" the individuals who were eligible and applied. But it did essentially put them in the back of the line so to speak with respect to deportation actions since there were plenty of bigger fish to fry. Some may argue that this is a distinction without a difference. And how one views it generally falls in line with whether or not one agrees with the underlying policy objective instead of any abstract "separation of powers, rule of law" principle. Hence why many on the right set their hair on fire whenever Obama used Executive Orders and are a quiet as a church mouse when Trump does the same thing. That being said, the original DACA has never been successfully challenged in court whereas the SCOTUS did rule 4-4 for a temporary injunction on an expansion on the program.
Trump's order isn't any better on rights, but has more respect for the separation between the legislature and the executive.
How does it have more respect for the legislative and the executive? If your concern was the process with which DACA was enacted, and I'm sympathetic to this point of view, then you should want Trump to rely on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform (where it will also be determined whether to continue the DREAMER program and what to do with the DREAMERS who took the first steps to get legal status in the US). But of course, that seems to be much harder for Trump than to sign an executive order where he can swiftly declare victory.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Sep 6, 2017, 10:03 AM
Originally Posted by OAW
Hence why many on the right set their hair on fire whenever Obama used Executive Orders and are a quiet as a church mouse when Trump does the same thing.
I haven't seen anyone be quiet about it, all I've seen is "HAHA Obama opened this XO door and now that it's used against you how does it make you feel you dumb liberals??"
Chongo: so, is disbanding DACA a moral/Christian thing to want to do?
Yes and no. We need to take care of those who are here already, yet we need to secure our borders.
I prefer that Trump not end the program, then again Obama himself said he did not have the constitutional authority to use an XO to create it. This is a mess that need not be, or is that what Obama wanted?
From the Archbishop of LA and the AZ Bishops, both are spot on and reflect my views.
Archbishop Gomez
Our nation’s failure to address the immigration issue has led to a persistent air of crisis and a true humanitarian tragedy.
We need to remember that the United States of America has always been an immigrant nation. Our humanity and our nation will be judged by our response to this new generation of immigrants.
Immigration reform is an issue of conscience and national identity.
It is time for us to reject the angry voices in the media and all who would exploit this issue for their own partisan advantage. And we should be clear: both of the major political parties continue to be guilty of this.
It may be naïve to say that we should put people above politics. But if it is naïve, then that is a sad commentary on the state of our politics.
It may sound “reasonable” when politicians and media figures talk about building walls along our southern borders and sending federal agents out to round-up and deport those who have crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas.
But the people they want to punish have become our neighbors. When we talk about “illegal immigrants,” we are talking about brothers and sisters with faces and names and families and stories — just like every one of us.
Most of the 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. have been living here for 5 years or more — two-thirds have been here for at least a decade. Almost half are living in homes with a spouse and children.
And right now we are deporting a lot of people — more than 2 million in recent years alone. Most are not violent criminals. In fact, up to one-quarter are mothers and fathers that our government is seizing from ordinary households.
We need to know these “numbers.” Because behind each of these numbers is a person with hopes and dreams and a family.
Politicians and media figures speak of “stanching the flow of illegal immigrants.” The reality is that in the name of enforcing our laws, we are deporting some little girl’s dad, some little boy’s mom.
No one is “for” illegal immigration. A sovereign nation has the obligation to secure its borders and determine who enters the country and how long they stay.
The current crisis is caused precisely because our government, at every level, has failed in its responsibilities — often motivated by businesses’ demands for “cheap” foreign-born labor.
There is plenty of blame to go around. All of us, to some extent, are benefitting every day from an economy of “illegal” workers. But deportation punishes only the vulnerable — ordinary parents who came here seeking a better life for their children.
After nearly two decades of debate here in the United States, there is actually a broad understanding of the issues and even a consensus about what needs to be done. Everyone knows that immigration follows the cycles of the global economy. And everyone agrees that our system is broken and needs to be modernized to reflect global realities.
There is also broad agreement on the basic outlines of authentic reform: We need reforms that secure our borders against illegal crossings and allow us to keep track of those living within our borders. We need reforms that enable us to welcome newcomers who have the character and skills our country needs to grow. We need to protect the rights of foreign-born workers.
There is even consensus on how to deal with the undocumented persons living among us. A Marist Poll commissioned last year by the Knights of Columbus found overwhelming support for granting them a generous path to citizenship, provided they meet certain requirements such as learning English, paying some fines and holding a job that pays taxes.
The consensus and the path forward are clear. What we are waiting for is politicians and media figures who have the will and the courage to lead.
The "bullet points" from the AZ Bishops after SB 1070
Our advocacy is predicated on our beliefs that:
• Illegal immigration is bad for our nation. It is not good for us to not know who is entering our country.
• Our international borders need to be secured and we need to be protected from drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, human trafficking and violence.
• There must be a process – but not amnesty – for persons who have entered our country illegally to pursue legal status. This process must have proportionate consequences for the act of illegal entry, consequences that would include fines, learning English, and going to the “back of the line” to seek citizenship.
• Our nation needs a program that would allow needed workers to enter the country legally. This program must include protection of worker rights.
The tragic consequences of the failure of our nation’s political leadership to enact reform of our immigration system have included the deaths of thousands of people.
Migrants – women, men, children in desperate circumstances – have died trying to enter our country. U.S. citizens have died because of crimes committed by drug smugglers, people smugglers and weapons smugglers.
We pray for those who have died and for their grieving families.
And we pray that our senators and representatives will put aside their partisan divisions and go to work immediately to fix the broken immigration system.
It also feels like after Charlottesville company CEOs are scared to publicly disagree with Trump anymore. A lot of CEOs on twitter outright saying they will fight this.
The plan to (maybe) end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has spurred plenty of moral indignation on the Left. And it’s that especially weird sort of moral indignation — weird, given the source — that involves Leftists complaining about alleged injustice and cruelty towards children.
According to them, the “Dreamers” who were born to illegal immigrant parents deserve to stay in this country, even if they are not citizens. “Think of the children!” They cry. A slogan they trot out only on select occasions. They are always ready to quickly return their “But the children!” posters to the shed, should the conversation switch to a different and specific topic.
That topic, of course, is abortion.
I’m often accused of bringing every discussion back to abortion, just as I’ve done here. Perhaps I am guilty as charged. It’s just that I can’t help but think it a rather big deal that we kill a million children a year. And I can’t help but see how that mass slaughter inevitably links to everything else in our society. There is just so much blood soaking the ground that it tends to bleed into every area of our lives, even if we prefer not to notice it.
I am especially unable to ignore the connection when the defenders of illegal immigration are so blatant in their hypocrisy. Just consider the most common arguments made in favor of allowing illegal immigrant kids to stay:
-“You can’t punish a child for the sins of his parents!”
-“They’re already here! They should be allowed to stay!”
-“It’s not fair!”
-“Immigrants are people, too!”
-“This is cruel!”
Pro-abortion Congressman Adam Schiff sent out a tweet today that said this: “Donald Trump again shows that no child is too young or vulnerable, no step is too low, and why he is the worst President in modern history.”
I mean, come on. “No child is too young or vulnerable” you’re worried?
Even if I wanted to, how could I possibly take these arguments seriously coming from folks who just got through explaining why unborn children should be executed because their mommies and daddies made a mistake and didn’t mean to conceive them? How could I sit with a straight face and listen to lectures about “cruelty” from people who think it’s cool to butcher a human being and sell his body parts to a research lab? How could I make any sense of the idea that a child has the right to remain in America because he’s already here, but no right to remain on planet Earth despite already being here? How is that even logistically possible?
There are respectable arguments a person can make on either side of the immigration debate. Personally, I’m in favor of enforcing our immigration laws, but, theoretically, a reasonable person could articulate a coherent case in favor of showing “mercy” to these kids. I think he would have some mistaken ideas about mercy and how mercy should be applied in terms of the law, but I wouldn’t laugh at this hypothetical reasonable person. But most of the people insisting on open borders are not reasonable. They expect us to believe, on one hand, that children in the womb are worthless sacks of lifeless matter, yet children outside — if they are immigrants or members of some other favored class — are so special and precious and endowed with such dignity that our immigration laws ought to be abolished for their sake.
It is consistent to be against abortion and in favor of applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. It is consistent to be in favor of abortion and in favor of applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. It is consistent to be against abortion and against applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. But it is total stark raving lunacy to be in favor of abortion and against applying our immigration laws to the kids of illegal immigrants. Every argument you make for one counteracts your argument for the other. There is no discernible ethic connecting the two positions. In one case, the lives of children are worthless, they should be forced to bear the consequences of their parents’ choices, and we need not worry about being cruel or unfair to them as we sever their limbs and toss them in the hazardous waste container, while in the other case, the opposite is true on every point. How can you hold both beliefs at once? How can you expect me to take either belief into account when you are so willing to abandon either belief depending on the topic at hand?
This is not a gotcha thing, Leftists. I’m trying to help you. This is why your appeals to morality fall on deaf ears. Nobody is able to listen to your arguments because they’re too distracted by the blood on your hands. You are standing on a mountain of dead kids while you sermonize about being compassionate to kids. It’s like a Klan member delivering a stirring homily about the evils of racial bigotry as he fastens the lynching rope to a tree. If history has proven anything, it’s that you really have to choose between compassion and genocide. You can’t really have both in a society.
So, to summarize: stop killing babies and then maybe we’ll take you seriously when you pretend to care about them. Until then, save the theatrics. I don’t buy it. Sorry.
The right has always cared more about unborn zygotes than they do about living breathing babies. If every argument circles back to this, then it's a fallacy.
The right has always cared more about unborn zygotes than they do about living breathing babies. If every argument circles back to this, then it's a fallacy.
“If you say you are ‘pro-life’ you should also care for the child even after they are born.” So goes the common charge leveled against pro-life activists and supporters. I have to admit, I don’t understand this statement.
I mean, I understand it. I understand and agree with the straightforward meaning of the words. The Catholic Church teaches clearly that every human person has an inalienable right to life “from conception until death” (CCC 2237).
What I don’t understand is who this charge is supposed to be leveled against? What pro-life activist only believes that a person has a right to life from conception until birth? Who believes that the human person only has innate dignity in utero? Where are the pro-life people who don’t think mothers deserve support after the children are born? I’ve never met them.
Most pregnancy care centers — in many ways the front-line foot soldiers of the pro-life movement — do far more than simply help mothers carry their children to term. They offer postpartum support and guidance for new and struggling mothers and fathers. The pregnancy care center near the college campus where I work offers classes in parenting skills, and has available diapers and clothing for infants on up to toddlers. They provide wonderful services for new moms and they do it on a shoestring budget, supported primarily by donations.
Contrast that to Planned Parenthood (recipient of much grant money and government funding) that provides no prenatal or postpartum care at any of their facilities.
The charge that pro-lifers don’t care about children after birth is often a politically motivated statement. It goes something like this… Political Party A supports stricter legal restrictions on abortions, with the eventual goal of making abortion illegal altogether. Political Party B supports unrestricted access to abortion during all stages of pregnancy. But they also want to increase the budget of the school lunch program. If you give your support to Political Party A because of their pro-life stance, you may be accused of ignoring the plight of hungry low-income school children. “If you are really pro-life, you’d help to take care of children after they are born, not just before.” It’s a charge designed to put pro-lifers on the defensive.
But should we feel defensive? Should we feel hypocritical if we give money to pro-life organizations but don’t also give money to organizations that dig wells in poor African villages? Should we feel guilty if we volunteer at the local pregnancy care center, but not at the food pantry or the homeless shelter?
I say no. All of us have limited time, limited money, and limited energy. We all have causes that are near and dear to our hearts; causes that we are more passionate about. These are the causes we are called to support and we should support them without feeling guilty that we cannot also equally support all other good and worthy causes. Just because we choose to spend our limited resources supporting Worthy Cause A and not Worthy Cause B does not make Worthy Cause B any less worthy.
That being said, in my personal experience the pro-life people I know also give time and money to other charitable organizations such as food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, free medical and dental clinics and so forth. So even on the face of it, the charge that pro-life advocates only care about people before they are born is demonstrably false.
This is especially true of the Catholic Church — arguably the largest pro-life organization on the planet — that also operates schools, hospitals, orphanages, adoption agencies, clinics, food pantries, and too many other charitable efforts to list. All of these things are possible because of the ongoing efforts of good people who have decided to dedicate themselves in a special way to one of these missions of charity — which by necessity means that they will be less involved in other good works. That’s not something to feel guilty about.
Does being pro-life mean upholding the dignity of the human person from conception until natural death? Yes, absolutely! That’s something pro-lifers should be most proud of.
Does DACA have the support of Americans?
Can DACA pass in congress?
Dies DACA have a majority of votes in congress?
Does DACA have more or less congressional support now than four years ago?
Did DACA have more or less votes four years ago?
The right has always cared more about unborn zygotes than they do about living breathing babies. If every argument circles back to this, then it's a fallacy.
It's a self-made get of jail free card to avoid answering tough questions about compassion.
Chongo, I respect that you yourself may believe in caring for the living, which is great. However, I've seen lots of evidence of others not following the same ethics. Lots of haters in this world. Hate other people's children. Hate children different from them. Think people on welfare are leeches. Think some people don't deserve children.
It still doesn't take away that the previous argument is baloney, though. False equivalency.
I haven't seen anyone be quiet about it, all I've seen is "HAHA Obama opened this XO door and now that it's used against you how does it make you feel you dumb liberals??"
I suppose my overarching point is that Obama opened no such door. XO's have been used by presidents going back decades. It's nothing new. Anyone claiming otherwise is either woefully unfamiliar with political history or just fundamentally had a problem with that particular POTUS exercising the power constitutionally granted to him as head of the Executive Branch.
Where do you live? Texas? Arizona? New Mexico? California?
What?
Arizona has the second longest border with Mexico, almost entirely desert.
The Pinal County Sheriff asked for help from the Obama administration. This is what he got.
Arizona has the second longest border with Mexico, almost entirely desert.
The Pinal County Sheriff asked for help from the Obama administration. This is what he got.
This is what we get when the primary mission of the party out of power is to obstruct the party in power, and not working on advancing actual constructive legislation. Six failed attempts at getting legislation passed would be better than none, because at least with those six attempts (to use an arbitrary number) there are iterations on improving/testing the legislation which can be applied to future attempts.
This is not as simple as just pointing your finger at Obama, sorry. It's time for both parties (especially the Republicans) to learn how to get stuff done.
Do we know what Trumps policy preference is here? Does he merely want DACA only as legitimate legislation? Does he want less dreamers? More? None?
Trump has no "policy preference" here because the man is utterly clueless when it comes to such matters. How many reports do we see coming out of the WH from staffers saying he doesn't fully grasp the issues? Even with this DACA situation we are hearing how he didn't realize the financial and political implications of what he just did. Even Sen. McCain recently said in an op ed that Trump is ...
Originally Posted by Sen. John McCain
... a president who has no experience of public office, is often poorly informed and can be impulsive in his speech and conduct."
You only need one lens to see why Trump does what he does. It is to erase as many of President Obama's accomplishments as he can. By XO. By legislation. Whatever. It's not a matter of ideology for Trump. It's personal. And he is more than willing to throw his own supporters under the bus from a practical perspective to do so. The saddest part is a large portion of his base is ok with cutting off their owns noses to spite their faces because their own anti-Obama sentiment blinds them to the real-world policy implications of Trump's actions until it's too late.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Sep 6, 2017, 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by besson3c
Six failed attempts at getting legislation passed would be better than none, because at least with those six attempts (to use an arbitrary number) there are iterations on improving/testing the legislation which can be applied to future attempts.
This sounds like a great argument in favor of the Obamacare repeal attempts.
Its political kryptonite for the GOP. The hilarious part is the longer they drag their feet on it, the more their party has become xenophobic and nationalist, making the fallout worse (Remember Rubio? Helped on the DREAM Act, then abandoned it like an unwanted child during his presidential run). I still think the votes are there for it (and have been for a while), but there's zero incentive for majority leadership to allow a bill to pass with a majority of Democratic votes.
Yes and no. We need to take care of those who are here already, yet we need to secure our borders.
I prefer that Trump not end the program, then again Obama himself said he did not have the constitutional authority to use an XO to create it. This is a mess that need not be, or is that what Obama wanted?
From the Archbishop of LA and the AZ Bishops, both are spot on and reflect my views.
Archbishop Gomez
The "bullet points" from the AZ Bishops after SB 1070
Aside from making your answer about Obama in your usual sort of knee-jerky defensive way, I must admit your answer was mostly pleasantly surprising. Thank you for not making me sad.
Aside from making your answer about Obama in your usual sort of knee-jerky defensive way, I must admit your answer was mostly pleasantly surprising. Thank you for not making me sad.
Knee jerk? Obama created this mess by his own words exercising authority he did not have in issuing the XO.
Knee jerk? Obama created this mess by his own words exercising authority he did not have in issuing the XO.
I mean, a little context would be nice. Yes, Obama created this 'mess.' Had he not done anything dreamers would have been in a different 'mess' the pass four years. Meanwhile, where was congress the past four years (and honestly, the decade before that as well)?
That’s what gave rise to the DREAM Act. … And I have said time and time and time again to Congress that, send me the DREAM Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away.
Now, both parties wrote this legislation. And a year and a half ago, Democrats passed the DREAM Act in the House, but Republicans walked away from it. It got 55 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it.
Oh, that's right, it got filibustered.
If it passes now, the only thing that will have changed is who's in the white house.
Knee jerk? Obama created this mess by his own words exercising authority he did not have in issuing the XO.
Whether Obama had the authority hasn't been established by the courts — the President has wide latitude when it comes to immigration matters (something we all remember from the discussion of Trump's travel ban). So I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that the courts would have found that Obama's executive order is an overreach of power.
Be that as it may, the current mess was not created by Obama, but entirely by the Trump administration. There was nothing that forced Trump's hand, there is no urgent issue surrounding the Dreamers that justified rescinding DACA and most likely creating a legal vacuum in six months's time. All of this could and should have been dealt with by Congress, either via a standalone bill (such as the DREAMER Act) or comprehensive immigration reform.
As it stands now, Dreamers are the most vulnerable pawns in a political game: there is no immigration reform on the horizon as there is no consensus within the GOP on how to proceed (the DREAMER Act was a bipartisan bill), so instead of doing something real, you punish a small group who has voluntarily given all the information necessary to find and deport them. Because of the particular stories behind this group, this will rally opponents (in practice, mostly Democrats) and mobilize Trump's base who in large part supports a hard stance against immigration. All of this furthers the political divide in the country and continues to portray the topic as being binary, “pro-immigration Democrats” and “contra-immigration Republicans”, and worse, does nothing to actually solve the immigration issues. This would require compromise and coming to grips with reality. Trump plans to deport those who are trying to do the right thing and get proper legal status here, who want to work in the US, pay taxes and are not “criminals and rapists” — i. e. those who by all accounts are among the most deserving for a path to legal residency.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
What if Trump signed an XO for his own DACA, Deferred Action for Corporate Assets, in which he waived penalties and fines for moving off shore corporate assess back to the US. Would you say the same thing about the courts needing to establish if he has the authority?
What if Trump signed an XO for his own DACA, Deferred Action for Corporate Assets, in which he waived penalties and fines for moving off shore corporate assess back to the US. Would you say the same thing about the courts needing to establish if he has the authority?
My opinions don't depend on what the executive order is on, it's just how the system of checks and balances works. There is a difference between people like you and me expressing an opinion that certain things are (or perhaps should be) illegal, laymen like us expressing an opinion of what a court may decide if asked, an executive order being challenged in a court of law and an executive order being found illegal by a court with a say in the matter.
When you claimed that Obama's executive order was illegal, what you were actually saying was the first thing: you don't think it was legal and/or you don't like what was decided. DACA hasn't been challenged in court, and there was plenty of time to do it (from 2012 on). I'm quite certain that if this were an open-and-shut case, someone would have filed a case in 2012.
I share your concern about executive orders being used instead of Congress, but at least Obama had the excuse that Congress wanted him to fail on that. Trump has a Republican majority in both chambers, and especially if executive overreach is your concern, then the last thing you should do is blame this on Obama. You should want the GOP (and the Democrats as a matter of fact) do better in this regard so that their cries of executive overreach next time a Democrat is in office don't ring hollow.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Ha! As if our attention spans were that long. What did Trump tweet about today? I need to be outraged about something.
I have the impression, I have either numbed to the barrage or the media has found a better way to pre-filter things by not taking all tweets too seriously. Or both.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Top