DACA was not a law.

[EvilCat Breath]

Every representative who wants the invaders to stay should get up and say so. After all it's just a tiny minority who wants them deported.

 

[jillian]

Every representative who wants the invaders to stay should get up and say so. After all it's just a tiny minority who wants them deported.

invaders, you brain dead twit?

we are talking about people. I know.... they're brown... to you they aren't people.

that's what white trash does.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The first DREAM Act was introduced by a Republican, believe it or not. In 2001.

S.1291 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): DREAM Act

In 2010, it passed the House but was defeated by a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Five Democrats also failed to support it. If they had, it would have passed.

Another DREAM Act was introduced in 2011, and because of the Tea Party movement at the time, not a single Republican signed onto it.

The GOP of today is nothing like the GOP of days past. Today, they are cowards. Spineless. Chickenshits.

That's how a New York Democrat was able to hijack the whole enchilada.

And in 2017 it will once again fail. There's not a single congress member up for election next year that will vote for amnesty of any kind for anyone. They will get wiped out.

I think there is a fairly good chance the DREAM Act will pass. The GOP will add amendments for cover to make it slightly tougher. Lowering the age limit to 30 from 35. Things like that.

The people who want these kids deported are a very tiny minority. We do have some Republicans who are utterly spineless and let this tiny minority push them around, and that's fucking pathetic.

I didn't assign a party affiliation for a reason. GOP are as expendable as democrats that vote for this. When the main line against them is they voted for amnesty an answer of yeah but I got... isn't going to fly. The minority is loud now. The majority get to speak in November. None of them want to spend all of their time on the campaign trail explaining why amnesty was their priority over citizens.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Every representative who wants the invaders to stay should get up and say so. After all it's just a tiny minority who wants them deported.

invaders, you brain dead twit?

we are talking about people. I know.... they're brown... to you they aren't people.

that's what white trash does.

They are here illegally. They are invaders and should be executed as such. If you have termites in your home, the exterminator does not protect the larva as your guests.

 

[bendog]

I think the way this is shaking out is that there will be a vote that they can stay, but there will be some provision for the Wall too. So nobody will get teapartied.

Whether there are 50 votes in the senate for funding the wall.......? But it shouldn't really matter. Just have both chambers pass something allowing them to stay, and send it to committee to allocate a few bucks for the Wall.

Although, I don't think one can overstate Ryan's ability to fuck this up.

 

[kwc57]

The first DREAM Act was introduced by a Republican, believe it or not. In 2001.

S.1291 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): DREAM Act

In 2010, it passed the House but was defeated by a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Five Democrats also failed to support it. If they had, it would have passed.

Another DREAM Act was introduced in 2011, and because of the Tea Party movement at the time, not a single Republican signed onto it.

The GOP of today is nothing like the GOP of days past. Today, they are cowards. Spineless. Chickenshits.

That's how a New York Democrat was able to hijack the whole enchilada.

Funny considering all the Democrats think he is evil personified. He's one of them for cripes sake.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the way this is shaking out is that there will be a vote that they can stay, but there will be some provision for the Wall too. So nobody will get teapartied.

Whether there are 50 votes in the senate for funding the wall.......? But it shouldn't really matter. Just have both chambers pass something allowing them to stay, and send it to committee to allocate a few bucks for the Wall.

Although, I don't think one can overstate Ryan's ability to fuck this up.

Trump (or whoever came up with this) actually has both parties in a bit of a pickle here.

As you point out, if it isn't tough enough, if it gives away too much, the Republicans who dared to support it will be primaried. On the other hand, if they vote against Trump's wishes, that could piss off the Trumpsters.

And as for the Democrats, if they're invited to throw in goodies and decline, Trump could leverage his bully pulpit to either force or blame them. If they have a chance to stop DACA from completely ending and pass on the whole thing, yikes, that won't look good.

I do enjoy any opportunity to see both parties squirm at the same time.
.

 

[bendog]

I think the way this is shaking out is that there will be a vote that they can stay, but there will be some provision for the Wall too. So nobody will get teapartied.

Whether there are 50 votes in the senate for funding the wall.......? But it shouldn't really matter. Just have both chambers pass something allowing them to stay, and send it to committee to allocate a few bucks for the Wall.

Although, I don't think one can overstate Ryan's ability to fuck this up.

Trump (or whoever came up with this) actually has both parties in a bit of a pickle here.

As you point out, if it isn't tough enough, if it gives away too much, the Republicans who dared to support it will be primaried. On the other hand, if they vote against Trump's wishes, that could piss off the Trumpsters.

And as for the Democrats, if they're invited to throw in goodies and decline, Trump could leverage his bully pulpit to either force or blame them. If they have a chance to stop DACA from completely ending and pass on the whole thing, yikes, that won't look good.

I do enjoy any opportunity to see both parties squirm at the same time.
.

I don't think the dems will face much backlash in refusing to fold on the Wall over blackmail on the birthers. I doubt there's 50 votes in the senate to pass that bs.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the way this is shaking out is that there will be a vote that they can stay, but there will be some provision for the Wall too. So nobody will get teapartied.

Whether there are 50 votes in the senate for funding the wall.......? But it shouldn't really matter. Just have both chambers pass something allowing them to stay, and send it to committee to allocate a few bucks for the Wall.

Although, I don't think one can overstate Ryan's ability to fuck this up.

Trump (or whoever came up with this) actually has both parties in a bit of a pickle here.

As you point out, if it isn't tough enough, if it gives away too much, the Republicans who dared to support it will be primaried. On the other hand, if they vote against Trump's wishes, that could piss off the Trumpsters.

And as for the Democrats, if they're invited to throw in goodies and decline, Trump could leverage his bully pulpit to either force or blame them. If they have a chance to stop DACA from completely ending and pass on the whole thing, yikes, that won't look good.

I do enjoy any opportunity to see both parties squirm at the same time.
.

I don't think the dems will face much backlash in refusing to fold on the Wall over blackmail on the birthers. I doubt there's 50 votes in the senate to pass that bs.

Probably depends on what else is in the bill. It could be comprehensive, with the kitchen sink thrown in for everyone.

That's more likely given the time constraints. I can see them tossing all kinds of stuff in at the last minute to get votes.
.

 

[bendog]

I think the way this is shaking out is that there will be a vote that they can stay, but there will be some provision for the Wall too. So nobody will get teapartied.

Whether there are 50 votes in the senate for funding the wall.......? But it shouldn't really matter. Just have both chambers pass something allowing them to stay, and send it to committee to allocate a few bucks for the Wall.

Although, I don't think one can overstate Ryan's ability to fuck this up.

Trump (or whoever came up with this) actually has both parties in a bit of a pickle here.

As you point out, if it isn't tough enough, if it gives away too much, the Republicans who dared to support it will be primaried. On the other hand, if they vote against Trump's wishes, that could piss off the Trumpsters.

And as for the Democrats, if they're invited to throw in goodies and decline, Trump could leverage his bully pulpit to either force or blame them. If they have a chance to stop DACA from completely ending and pass on the whole thing, yikes, that won't look good.

I do enjoy any opportunity to see both parties squirm at the same time.
.

I don't think the dems will face much backlash in refusing to fold on the Wall over blackmail on the birthers. I doubt there's 50 votes in the senate to pass that bs.

Probably depends on what else is in the bill. It could be comprehensive, with the kitchen sink thrown in for everyone.

That's more likely given the time constraints. I can see them tossing all kinds of stuff in at the last minute to get votes.
.

Ah, it's McConnell and he hasn't a single nut in the entire sack. He's got 60 votes in the senate to pass a clean Daca bill. But who the fuck nows what the ballless prick will try.

 

[Gracie]

DACA was not a law.
It was just another one of Racist Barry the Magnificent’s shady, unconstitutional, illegal policies.
Obama panders to the racist/bigot La Raza, LULAC and Aztlan Nationalist who hate Anglos and who refuse to accept that America is a sovereign country with immigration laws.

And states are now suing Trump for rescinding that illegal policy. Why am I not surprised.

 

[busybee01]

DACA was not a law.

Generations ago, Congress passed our immigration laws, and the President at the time signed them into law. They said that any foreign national who comes into the country without a visa, should be deported. The law made no exception for very young children.

DACA is a program created by Executive Order by Barack Obama. In doing so, he simply ignored the law. And then violated it. Is this what Presidents should do?

If Obama's heart told him it was bad to deport someone who had been brought into the country illegally by his parents when he was maybe 1 or two years old... why didn't Obama go to Congress (then fully controlled by Democrats), get them to pass a bill changing the immigration laws to allow grown adults who were brought in as young children to stay? Why did he take it upon himself to violate his own oath of office and break the laws passed by Congress instead? If this idea was as popular as the liberals say it is, there should have been no problem getting Congress to change the law... should there?

The reason is, because most Americans didn't want the law changed. And the Congressmen knew they might lose their next election if they changed the law that way, that's why.

Congress has had plenty of time - decades - to change the law. And they have deliberately kept it unchanged.

If your heart says that's not right... have YOU tried to get Congress to change the law? Or are you pretty sure you'd never succeed... because most American people don't want the law changed?

The American way is to have laws passed by our Representatives and signed by the President... and to have them changed by those representatives and signed into different form by the President. And to OBEY them until they are changed.

People who don't want to follow that pattern, should maybe find a different country where they don't do that. Until they do, no, they shouldn't just start letting illegal aliens who were brought here as kids, stay. That would violate the law - a law that America clearly doesn't want changed. Only a small but vocal minority want it differently.

Some anti-Americans would love to see our highest elected officials violate refuse to do their jobs and start violating American law instead. It would be the first step toward tearing down any American law they feel like, and transforming the country into something the American people don't want.

And those anti-Americans know that their best chance of success is to get Americans to say, "Where is your heart?" ....and carefully ignore the more important question, "Do we want our elected officials to obey and enforce the law we made our representatives pass... or not?"

The fact is that a President has discretion in terms of who to deport. While he cannot technically create law, he can say that he will not deport the children of people here illegally. That is what Obama did. That was entirely legal.

The fact is that Trump has violated the law. Obamacare required everyone to have insurance or pay a fine. Trump has told the IRS to ignore the law. This was a law passed by Congress and has not been repealed by Congress. Where is the outrage for Trump ignoring the laws?

 

[busybee01]

The first DREAM Act was introduced by a Republican, believe it or not. In 2001.

S.1291 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): DREAM Act

In 2010, it passed the House but was defeated by a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Five Democrats also failed to support it. If they had, it would have passed.

Another DREAM Act was introduced in 2011, and because of the Tea Party movement at the time, not a single Republican signed onto it.

The GOP of today is nothing like the GOP of days past. Today, they are cowards. Spineless. Chickenshits.

That's how a New York Democrat was able to hijack the whole enchilada.

And in 2017 it will once again fail. There's not a single congress member up for election next year that will vote for amnesty of any kind for anyone. They will get wiped out.

DACA has 60% + approval ratings. That includes a majority of Republicans. You are in the minority. You are another 15%er.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

DACA was not a law.
It was just another one of Racist Barry the Magnificent’s shady, unconstitutional, illegal policies.
Obama panders to the racist/bigot La Raza, LULAC and Aztlan Nationalist who hate Anglos and who refuse to accept that America is a sovereign country with immigration laws.

you really should probably get an education. I almost feel bad for the ignorance you spew....

but not really... because you're too vile to feel sorry for....

now read and learn little ijit.....

"executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies"

What is an Executive Order?

they have the full force of law....even when signed by the black guy, you lowlife Obama deranged loon.

jill, show me the Executive Order Number for DACA.
But you can't because there isn't one.
EOs have numbers and dates.
That is one of the main faults of DACA is that it was another one of Obama's abuses of power.

 

[hazlnut]

DACA was not a law.
It was just another one of Racist Barry the Magnificent’s shady, unconstitutional, illegal policies.
Obama panders to the racist/bigot La Raza, LULAC and Aztlan Nationalist who hate Anglos and who refuse to accept that America is a sovereign country with immigration laws.

Why do people who failed civics and American Gov post on this board at all…?

You just embarrass yourselves, look like fools….


Executive orders are issued by United States Presidents and directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

DACA was not a law.
It was just another one of Racist Barry the Magnificent’s shady, unconstitutional, illegal policies.
Obama panders to the racist/bigot La Raza, LULAC and Aztlan Nationalist who hate Anglos and who refuse to accept that America is a sovereign country with immigration laws.

You stupid white mf....Obama temporarily gave sancturary to the children of illegals....he left it up to that worthless pile of shit GOP congress to create legislation allowing DACA to become law....listen, if your gonna come here time and time again to lie, do us all a favor, DON'T...it really makes you look like the white trash you really are, dumb bitch!!

what was the lie?

 

[g5000]

DACA was not a law.
It was just another one of Racist Barry the Magnificent’s shady, unconstitutional, illegal policies.
Obama panders to the racist/bigot La Raza, LULAC and Aztlan Nationalist who hate Anglos and who refuse to accept that America is a sovereign country with immigration laws.

you really should probably get an education. I almost feel bad for the ignorance you spew....

but not really... because you're too vile to feel sorry for....

now read and learn little ijit.....

"executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies"

What is an Executive Order?

they have the full force of law....even when signed by the black guy, you lowlife Obama deranged loon.

jill, show me the Executive Order Number for DACA.
But you can't because there isn't one.
EOs have numbers and dates.
That is one of the main faults of DACA is that it was another one of Obama's abuses of power.

DACA was first implemented by memorandum in 2012 instead of an EO.

You can read the memorandum here: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets...on-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

In 2014, Obama issued an EO to expand DACA, but that was challenged and defeated in the courts.

 

[hazlnut]

Obama's executive actions of November 2014[edit]
On November 20, 2014, in a televised address from the White House, President Barack Obama announced a program of "deferred action" which would allow roughly 45% of illegal immigrants to legally stay and work in the United States.[56] The largest prior deferral action, in 1990, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, affected 40% of undocumented immigrants then.[57] Up to 3.7 million undocumented parents of individuals who are U.S. citizens, or who have been legal permanent residents in the country for at least five years, are eligible for the new deferrals, as are about 300,000 immigrants who arrived as children before January 2010. Members of this second group would be eligible by expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which previously covered 1.2 million people, the expansion bringing the new coverage total to 1.5 million.[58] The new deferrals would be granted for three years at a time. Supplemental executive actions also announced include an end to the Secure Communities program, increased resources for border enforcement, and new procedures for "high-skilled immigrants". These other "parts of the president's plan" could provide "protection from deportation" for roughly "an additional one million people". President Obama's actions were clearly presented as a response to Congress having been unable in recent years to agree on a general legislative overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. Obama indicated:

"[By] acting where Congress has failed...[I hope] to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary."[5][56]

On December 16, 2014, Arthur J. Schwab, a United States federal judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ruled that President Obama's executive action on immigration was unconstitutional[59] in a case involving a Honduran man facing criminal charges for returning to the United States after being deported. As the New York Times put it, this finding "had no immediate effect".[60] On December 4, 2014, a more direct challenge was, however, filed in federal court by the attorney general of Texas, on behalf of 17 states.[61]

By January 26, 2015, the number of states participating in the lawsuit had grown to 26.[62] On February 12, testifying before the House of Representatives, officials from Ohio and Kansas stated that, due to the actions of the Obama Administration, it was difficult to determine whether illegal immigrants had registered to vote. The Senators claimed that, despite the rigorous repercussions for falsifying registration information, a considerable number of still illegal immigrants might take advantage of the ongoing and adapting bureaucratic efforts on the part of those filtering the applications. The illegal immigrants seeking to gain the right to vote in America were alleged to be facilitated not only by the new and large influx of legitimate applications, but also by the ready availability of the necessary registration forms, which could be obtained by anyone with access to a local DMV, a shopping mall, or one of a growing number of "curbside registration drives".[63]

On February 16, 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas, issued a temporary injunction[64] against the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program. On February 17, 2015, just one day before undocumented immigrants were set to begin applying for work permits and legal protections, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced a delay in implementing the DAPA program, but also said that the district court ruling would be appealed. USA Today noted the expectation of Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr that the appeal will likely eventually succeed since federal courts generally give "the president broad authority to shape the enforcement and implementation of immigration laws".[65]

The appeal was heard on an expedited basis by three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 10, 2015. On November 9, the divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction of February 2015, and ordered the case back to the district court in Texas for trial.[66] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to aliens, and that President Obama’s order violated the rulemaking requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act.[66] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit” deferred action.[67] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been “no justification” for the circuit court’s delay in ruling.[67] On 20 November 2015, the United States Department of Justice appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.[67][68][69][70] On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.[71] In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on June 23, leaving in place the appeals court ruling blocking Obama's executive actions.[72] On June 15, 2017, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly announced that the order establishing the DAPA program was rescinded.[73]

 

[g5000]

A memorandum has the same force of law as an Executive Order. The two are often used interchangeably.

An EO is a dressed up memorandum.

Here is the 2012 DACA memorandum: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets...on-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Every representative who wants the invaders to stay should get up and say so. After all it's just a tiny minority who wants them deported.

invaders, you brain dead twit?

we are talking about people. I know.... they're brown... to you they aren't people.

that's what white trash does.

Hey got that EO number Obama's DACA yet sparky? LOL