So what if Trump concedes...and agrees to "fix" DACA? What will the "base" think?

[Slade3200]

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

 

[Slade3200]

Can you do me a big favor and send me the Executive Order number for DACA? I'd like to read the actual text of the EO and consider your arguement. I can't seem to find it.

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Come on man...how many times are we gonna do this?
What you've described is Constitutional Overreach and a NOT so clever work-around of our Constitution. It's why Democrats got obliterated and have become damn-near irrelevant in D.C.
See, the executive branch is suppose to fulfill the will of the people by executing the laws the people have asked congress to pass.
Why / how do you have such trouble with this?

I have no trouble with following the law but I also believe many changes need to be made, I believe public opinion wants to help the dreamers. Congress has been to inept to make a law to do so. Obama found a work around to defer deportation for this group and buy them some time until the point when congress can hopefully figure out how to make a decent law.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So now your arguing that DACA is a legislative bill, that President Obama had nothing to do with initiating and imposing DACA on an existing Federal immigration law? Let's be clear about this, shall we. Who initiated the act of imposing DACA regarding the deportation of illegal children that would be effected by the Federal Immigration law, the legislative or the executive. Quite frankly it's evident here you are rather confused as to who writes our legislative laws, and who has the authority to change the enforcement of existing laws, particularly on immigration. Perhaps Slade is now eluding to DACA being a "suggestion" that really it carried not weight at all, that those effected by it could simply be deported by ICE anyways and that no prevention of deportation is implied or shall be carried out.

Slase, So was DACA (1) an unenforceable "suggestion" where those effected could still be deported, or (2) one infuriated by the legislative branch and not the executive? To which of these two points are you implying? Please be clear. If you are implying DACA was not initiated by President Obama and not meant to change Federal Immigration laws in protecting those who are not citizens but illegals, then why all the political concerns over deportation if CONGRESS doesn't get something done about it?

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

 

[Slade3200]

Whoa buddy, I simply asked for the EO number so I could look up the actual text of the order. All that I've found is a memo that serves as a directive to our immigration agencies about how to prioritize enforcement. Nothing that changes law or legal status.

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All I said was show me in ARTICLE II where it states specifically that the president has the authority to change how enforcement of a law is to be carried out. You failed to do that. You can wish and desire to see a certain group of illegals remain all you want, the law is still the law. What President Obama did was unconstitutional, I can't be any more clear on that.


"The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- President Barrack Obama September 28, 2011

Whether President Obama claims to support DACA or the Dream Act, if the individual found is an illegal they must be deported ... you can't ignore the law.

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

 

[EverCurious]

You folks are morons who have no idea what you're blathering about RE Trump and the Dreamers.

August 2013:
Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates “You’ve convinced me”
In Iowa, Donald Trump warns Republicans about Hillary, immigration

December 2016:
Trump on DREAMers: We'll 'work something out'


As for Trump supporters, ya'll apparently missed the news (edit: study from July 2017):
Seventy-Five Percent of Trump Voters Want Legal Status for Dreamers - Niskanen Center

Swing batta, batta, batta: whoosh...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You folks are morons who have no idea what you're blathering about RE Trump and the Dreamers.

August 2013:
Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates “You’ve convinced me”
In Iowa, Donald Trump warns Republicans about Hillary, immigration

December 2016:
Trump on DREAMers: We'll 'work something out'


As for Trump supporters, ya'll apparently missed the news:
Seventy-Five Percent of Trump Voters Want Legal Status for Dreamers - Niskanen Center

Swing batta, batta, batta: whoosh...

Apparently some forgot who ran Congress when Obama took the oath of office as the new president. If those statistics regarding these immigrants becoming citizens were at all accurate to how the country feels, why didn't Pelosi deal with the issue when she was Speaker and the Democrats ran both branches of government? Truth hurts, doesn't it?

 

[EverCurious]

You folks are morons who have no idea what you're blathering about RE Trump and the Dreamers.

August 2013:
Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates “You’ve convinced me”
In Iowa, Donald Trump warns Republicans about Hillary, immigration

December 2016:
Trump on DREAMers: We'll 'work something out'


As for Trump supporters, ya'll apparently missed the news:
Seventy-Five Percent of Trump Voters Want Legal Status for Dreamers - Niskanen Center

Swing batta, batta, batta: whoosh...

Apparently some forgot who ran Congress when Obama took the oath of office as the new president. If those statistics regarding these immigrants becoming citizens were at all accurate to how the country feels, why didn't Pelosi deal with the issue when she was Speaker and the Democrats ran both branches of government? Truth hurts, doesn't it?

No idea... Why did D's blow off making DACA legal when they had control? Why did they /all/ wait until President Trump pushed the issue and attempted to force them into acting legally? I bet you it has to do with votes because career politicians only care about votes.

Maybe you should ask Pelosi?

 

[Slade3200]

Article 2 section 3 of the constitution gives the president the responsibility and authority to execute laws. Congress makes them, the executive dictates execution. DACA did not change the law. It deferred action and directed enforcement to apply to criminals instead of children and families. If the police chiefs wants cops to focus their time going after gangs and not jaywalkers then the chief has the ability to give that directive, does he not?

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Secrion 3 states "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, being as written".

He does not have the authority with regard to Federal immigration, to change authorataitive action. Whereby an immigrant found to be illegal, as defined by legislative law, IS NOT to be deported because the Commander-in-Chief forbids it but would rather they enforce it elsewhere.

You sir are incorrect.

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You folks are morons who have no idea what you're blathering about RE Trump and the Dreamers.

August 2013:
Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates “You’ve convinced me”
In Iowa, Donald Trump warns Republicans about Hillary, immigration

December 2016:
Trump on DREAMers: We'll 'work something out'


As for Trump supporters, ya'll apparently missed the news:
Seventy-Five Percent of Trump Voters Want Legal Status for Dreamers - Niskanen Center

Swing batta, batta, batta: whoosh...

Apparently some forgot who ran Congress when Obama took the oath of office as the new president. If those statistics regarding these immigrants becoming citizens were at all accurate to how the country feels, why didn't Pelosi deal with the issue when she was Speaker and the Democrats ran both branches of government? Truth hurts, doesn't it?

No idea... Why did D's blow off making DACA legal when they had control? Why did they /all/ wait until President Trump pushed the issue and attempted to force them into acting legally? I bet you it has to do with votes because career politicians only care about votes.

Maybe you should ask Pelosi?

The timing was during a presidential re-election year, that should give a pretty good idea as to why it was done.

 

[Slade3200]

How did he change the law as written with DACA? Be specific. Whats the timeline written in the law for the processing and deportation of illegal aliens?

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I will be very precise and clear Slade, so any liberal can follow along. First ...What was the reason behind DACA and the Dreamers Act, which came from the "Executive Branch" and NOT the Legislative Branch of Congress? Remember Congress could not get the Dreamers Act passed - FACT. Why is the media SO concerned with President Trump allowing it to expire? DEPORTATION of those defined by law as illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country. Through our current Federal Immigration Law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States to become law, ANY immigrant who does not go through the process of attaining legal citizenship is classified as an undocumented worker a.k.a. an illegal immigrant. Illegal means the immigrant seeks residency within the borders of the United States but without attaining the required current unexpired workers permit or undergoing the process of attaining full citizenship by registration through a government agency process, they have broken the Federal Immigration Law.

Current Federal Immigration law states that only if one of the parents are found to be an American citizen, that children are classified as natural born citizens of this country. An examiniation of this in our current Federal Immigration Law is precisely the reason Democrats are pushing for DACA or the Dreamers Act. Again, both are currently only enacted by President Obama NOT by legislation through the constitutional process of establishing a bill through Congress. Our current Federal Immigration Law still states ANY immigrant that is illegal by consequence shall be deported. President Obama attempted to shield certain groups of immigrants from deportation and push deportation to only those involved in criminal activities. Again, the current Federal Immigration Law allows for no distinction and classified ALL immigrants without a current workers visa and without registration through a process from a government agency AS an illegal subject to deportation. What Obama did was unconstitutional and not within his Constitutional authority given under Article II of the Executive Branch.

If you still don't understand this Slade, I highly recommend you READ the United States Constitution and have some knowledge of our current Federal immigration law instead of speaking on a subject to which you know nothing about.

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

 

[Slade3200]

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

You don't hurt my feelings at all. Executive powers are defined beyond just Article 2 section 3 states. There have been several court cases about the issue and rulings that set precedent about what "faithfully executed" and "take Care" actually mean. Deportations involve much more than just finding somebody and sending them back. There is a process that involves courts and enforcement resources. If the executive deems it in the best interest to expedite or focus the time and resources they have on criminals instead of children and their families then he has every right to do that and not bog the system down. Like you said, nothing in DACA changes the law or the status of these people. I understand your objections but I simply don't agree and it isn't as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be or else the memo never would have made it through the lawyers and courts and been implemented for the years that it has been. I for one agree with the efforts that allow dreamers to stay in this country so of course I am going to back up the temporary measure that Obama put in place and encourage congress to now pass the dream act to make it law.

 

[BrokeLoser]

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

You don't hurt my feelings at all. Executive powers are defined beyond just Article 2 section 3 states. There have been several court cases about the issue and rulings that set precedent about what "faithfully executed" and "take Care" actually mean. Deportations involve much more than just finding somebody and sending them back. There is a process that involves courts and enforcement resources. If the executive deems it in the best interest to expedite or focus the time and resources they have on criminals instead of children and their families then he has every right to do that and not bog the system down. Like you said, nothing in DACA changes the law or the status of these people. I understand your objections but I simply don't agree and it isn't as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be or else the memo never would have made it through the lawyers and courts and been implemented for the years that it has been. I for one agree with the efforts that allow dreamers to stay in this country so of course I am going to back up the temporary measure that Obama put in place and encourage congress to now pass the dream act to make it law.

Alright already...you've tip-toed around long enough.
Your implication is clear...but I'll ask anyway....Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be amended to improve the livelihood and quality of life of Mexicans while compromising the livelihood and quality of life of your countrymen?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution was written for foreigners by foreigners?
Do you believe "We The People" really meant "We The People Outside Of The U.S.?
Are you starting to wrap your head around it all yet?
This is the part where you duck and run from this thread.
OR just man up and admit you're an anchor named Enrique so atleast we can confirm and understand your pathetic bias.

 

[SavannahMann]

I've read the constitution, i've read the DACA memo and I've read the opposing sides of each case for this issue. The FACT is that Obama did not change any laws. DACA is not a law, it didn't change the legal status of anybody... it wasn't even an executive order. It was an executive action, a memo, a directive that defined deportation priorities and deferred action to be taken against dreamers so the resources could be focused on criminal illegals. Trump has this same directive focusing resources on criminals. Is Trumps directive also illegal and unconstitutional in your mind? The executive is given constitutional authority by Article 2 section 3 to enforce and execute the laws written by congress. If the executive feels that criminal illegals pose a larger threat to American citizens and would prefer our enforcement agencies to focus their resources on deporting those individuals then that is well within his constitutional rights.

If DACA did not change laws regarding immigration and WHO will be deported, then there really is no reason for DACA at all.

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

Not exactly true. You see, there is the established legal principle of Prosecutorial Discression. This is where the prosecutor is absolutely justified in charging one person for a crime, and not charging someone else based entirely upon their own feelings.

This is part of the reason why Prosecutors tend to be elected. Because the people have the say so on if the Prosecutor is doing their jobs properly. Using discression where appropriate in other words. At the Federal Level, prosecutors are appointed by the President. The discression exists not only with the US Attorney, but with the person who gave them the job. Deputy US Attorney's answer to the appointed US Attorney.

The Prosecutor would look like an ass and certainly be voted out of office, or asked to resign, if he went strictly by the letter of the law in every case. As one example, the US Attorney in Colorado still prosecutes people for Marijuana related offenses, but only where the person transports the drug across state lines. The Prosecutor uses the discression to keep from charging people who are strictly within the state, grown and sold to outlets in the state, because he knows that the Jury will almost certainly find the accused not guilty. They don't go by the letter of the law either.

Think back to how many of the Law and Order types were outraged when Marilyn Mosby charged the cops for the death of Freddie Gray. By the letter of the law, they were certainly responsible for the death of the young man. But it was outrageous that they would be charged, instead of you know, a parade or something.

Plea Bargains are part of Prosecutorial Discression, dropping some charges in exchange for a guilty plea on other lesser charges. The letter of the law does say that the accused did this more serious crime, but we accept it all the same.

Now, the President appointed the US Attorneys, or at least allowed them to stay when he took office. They answer to him. He "hired" and he can "fire" them at will.

The Attorney General announced that the DOJ would no longer be conducting investigation into law enforcement agencies. The same investigations that turned up widespread misconduct and unconstitutional practices by the departments during the Bush Administration are now gone because Obama was a big believer in them. Why aren't you screaming to have these investigations run since the letter of the law seems to require it?

That's the funny thing about the Law and Order types. They want the letter of the law followed on laws they agree with, the rest is just bullshit from the damned Liberals and should never have been a law in the first place.

The same Discression that was used to end the DOJ compliance investigations and actions of Police Departments was great. The same discression is now totally unconstitutional because they aren't rounding up people and enforcing a law you do like.

 

[Slade3200]

Its a directive, not a law. You are trying to characterize it as this illegal presidential over reach but you aren't being honest about what it really is. The FACTS are it didn't change the immigration status of anybody, it didn't change the law or apply a new law, it was an enforcement directive and it was instituted as a temporary measure not as a permanent solution as Obama himself said.

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

You don't hurt my feelings at all. Executive powers are defined beyond just Article 2 section 3 states. There have been several court cases about the issue and rulings that set precedent about what "faithfully executed" and "take Care" actually mean. Deportations involve much more than just finding somebody and sending them back. There is a process that involves courts and enforcement resources. If the executive deems it in the best interest to expedite or focus the time and resources they have on criminals instead of children and their families then he has every right to do that and not bog the system down. Like you said, nothing in DACA changes the law or the status of these people. I understand your objections but I simply don't agree and it isn't as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be or else the memo never would have made it through the lawyers and courts and been implemented for the years that it has been. I for one agree with the efforts that allow dreamers to stay in this country so of course I am going to back up the temporary measure that Obama put in place and encourage congress to now pass the dream act to make it law.

Alright already...you've tip-toed around long enough.
Your implication is clear...but I'll ask anyway....Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be amended to improve the livelihood and quality of life of Mexicans while compromising the livelihood and quality of life of your countrymen?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution was written for foreigners by foreigners?
Do you believe "We The People" really meant "We The People Outside Of The U.S.?
Are you starting to wrap your head around it all yet?
This is the part where you duck and run from this thread.
OR just man up and admit you're an anchor named Enrique so atleast we can confirm and understand your pathetic bias.

I think we should do our best to secure our border and track visas. I think we should enforce laws and deport people who we catch crossing illegally. I think dreamers should be granted legal status with a pathway to citizenship. I think the other 11 million undocumented in this country should be granted a pathway to legalization without the option of citizenship and with a probationary period that involves fines, education requirements and or community service. The legal pathway into this country needs reform and should be much more attractive than the illegal path.

 

[BrokeLoser]

It was an enforcement directive from the executive branch established by President Obama, not the legislative branch directed at a passed and signed Federal Legislative Law. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at a group of immigrants who are classified from Federal Law as illegal or had an expired work visa. Either way they are illegal and NOT American Citizens under the law (FACT). The Federal Immigration Law clearly defines WHO is classified as legal and WHO is defined as an American citizen. If you don't meet either of those criteria, under Federal Law you face deportation.

(1) Look up your word ENFORCEMENT dumbass, (2) respond in your next post with what Webster gives as the definition. Then when you are smart enough to figure that one out, (3) respond with WHAT was to be enforced, directed to who, in order to prevent what.

The president does not have the authority under Article 2 section 3 to change how a law is to be enforced. If it was an enforcment directive it was established to prevent a certain legal action... under law,, from happening. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

You don't hurt my feelings at all. Executive powers are defined beyond just Article 2 section 3 states. There have been several court cases about the issue and rulings that set precedent about what "faithfully executed" and "take Care" actually mean. Deportations involve much more than just finding somebody and sending them back. There is a process that involves courts and enforcement resources. If the executive deems it in the best interest to expedite or focus the time and resources they have on criminals instead of children and their families then he has every right to do that and not bog the system down. Like you said, nothing in DACA changes the law or the status of these people. I understand your objections but I simply don't agree and it isn't as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be or else the memo never would have made it through the lawyers and courts and been implemented for the years that it has been. I for one agree with the efforts that allow dreamers to stay in this country so of course I am going to back up the temporary measure that Obama put in place and encourage congress to now pass the dream act to make it law.

Alright already...you've tip-toed around long enough.
Your implication is clear...but I'll ask anyway....Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be amended to improve the livelihood and quality of life of Mexicans while compromising the livelihood and quality of life of your countrymen?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution was written for foreigners by foreigners?
Do you believe "We The People" really meant "We The People Outside Of The U.S.?
Are you starting to wrap your head around it all yet?
This is the part where you duck and run from this thread.
OR just man up and admit you're an anchor named Enrique so atleast we can confirm and understand your pathetic bias.

I think we should do our best to secure our border and track visas. I think we should enforce laws and deport people who we catch crossing illegally. I think dreamers should be granted legal status with a pathway to citizenship. I think the other 11 million undocumented in this country should be granted a pathway to legalization without the option of citizenship and with a probationary period that involves fines, education requirements and or community service. The legal pathway into this country needs reform and should be much more attractive than the illegal path.

Listen to yourself bud...you sound un-American as all hell...Everything you champion provides a benefit to Mexicans while jeopardizing the livelihood and quality of life of your fellow countrymen.
I think you're struggling to understand that our Constitution was written by Americans for Americans...our laws are for Americans to benefit from...not Mexicans. The fact that you hate that notion leads me to believe you may be posting from Tijuana? Please confirm.

 

[Slade3200]

Haha, are you noticing that with each round of this conversation your statements are getting closer and closer to what I've been saying the whole time?

It was a directive not a law. It changed enforcement priority not legal status. With over 11 million illegals in the country and limited resources the president absolutely has the right to give directives on how to best execute the law. And if he thinks that focusing our priorities and resources towards people committing crimes instead of children and families then that is well within his rights under article 2 section 3. I don't think I can be any clearer.

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

You don't hurt my feelings at all. Executive powers are defined beyond just Article 2 section 3 states. There have been several court cases about the issue and rulings that set precedent about what "faithfully executed" and "take Care" actually mean. Deportations involve much more than just finding somebody and sending them back. There is a process that involves courts and enforcement resources. If the executive deems it in the best interest to expedite or focus the time and resources they have on criminals instead of children and their families then he has every right to do that and not bog the system down. Like you said, nothing in DACA changes the law or the status of these people. I understand your objections but I simply don't agree and it isn't as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be or else the memo never would have made it through the lawyers and courts and been implemented for the years that it has been. I for one agree with the efforts that allow dreamers to stay in this country so of course I am going to back up the temporary measure that Obama put in place and encourage congress to now pass the dream act to make it law.

Alright already...you've tip-toed around long enough.
Your implication is clear...but I'll ask anyway....Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be amended to improve the livelihood and quality of life of Mexicans while compromising the livelihood and quality of life of your countrymen?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution was written for foreigners by foreigners?
Do you believe "We The People" really meant "We The People Outside Of The U.S.?
Are you starting to wrap your head around it all yet?
This is the part where you duck and run from this thread.
OR just man up and admit you're an anchor named Enrique so atleast we can confirm and understand your pathetic bias.

I think we should do our best to secure our border and track visas. I think we should enforce laws and deport people who we catch crossing illegally. I think dreamers should be granted legal status with a pathway to citizenship. I think the other 11 million undocumented in this country should be granted a pathway to legalization without the option of citizenship and with a probationary period that involves fines, education requirements and or community service. The legal pathway into this country needs reform and should be much more attractive than the illegal path.

Listen to yourself bud...you sound un-American as all hell...Everything you champion provides a benefit to Mexicans while jeopardizing the livelihood and quality of life of your fellow countrymen.
I think you're struggling to understand that our Constitution was written by Americans for Americans...our laws are for Americans to benefit from...not Mexicans. The fact that you hate that notion leads me to believe you may be posting from Tijuana? Please confirm.

Everything? How does added boarder security benefit Mexicans while jeopardizing the livelihood of Americans? You are just too blinded by your ideology to see that the only way to realistically solve this problem is by the solutions that I presented. The alternative is massive deportations or trying to "starve" them out. Neither of those are going to lead to a better path for our communities and for Americans. If you really want to work on the problem then you have to meet somewhere in the middle and what I presented is a compromise for both sides. It is too bad you can't see it. Its hard headed extremists on both sides that have stalled and prolonged this issue for as long as it has been.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I believe I already clearly shown your Article II Section 3 was inaccurate, you were simply pulling a small segment of the executive branch and thinking you can make a square peg fit a round hole. Nice try but wrong. Nothing in Article II Section 3 shows the president has the authority to determine how a law is to be enforced, especially contrary to how the legislative bill was originally written and passed into law. It's the Supreme Courts job to interpret the law and make a determination based on the bills original interpretation with was written. A president's role is not to interpret and make changes of enforcement unilaterally as he so chooses. A change in interpretation with regard to enforcement can only be made through a change in the law itself by Congress. We have three separate but equal branches of government intentionally, each with their own purpose and role to establish and create "checks and balances". Maybe you've heard of that phrase? The United States Constitution makes it crystal clear that only Congress can debate and come to a consensus by vote to change a bill through legislation, or with respect to a change in the Constitution itself ... through Amendment. The president can advise Congress and has the authority to veto, but NOT how a law is to be enforced.

I can't believe Slade needs to have Constitution basics explained at this stage of the debate. Especially one who doesn't have a clue as to what "enforcement" means coming from the executive branch.

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, however if an immigrant child or adult have not gone through the Federal process to obtain citizenship, they are not American citizens by classified BY FEDERAL LAW but classified as illegal and can be deported. For ICE to be notified or find an individual who is not a citizen under the law, and be told by executive enforcement directive he can not deport that individual ... contrary to previously passed and signed Federal Immigration Law, is changing how such laws are to be interpreted through the executive power of enforcement by the President and not through Congress as outlined by our Constitution.

That makes what President Obama did as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Dance around with your excuses and opinions as many times as you want, it does not change what our current Federal Immigration Laws clearly defines as an illegal, naturalized citizen, or having attained legalized citizenship. The law is still the law within the manner and parameters to which it had been written, debated, and passed..

The President's responsibility in Section 3 of Article II is in the assurance that the laws are faithfully executed, not determine how they are to be enforced contrary to what the bill clearly states that it's to be followed and enforced.

You don't hurt my feelings at all. Executive powers are defined beyond just Article 2 section 3 states. There have been several court cases about the issue and rulings that set precedent about what "faithfully executed" and "take Care" actually mean. Deportations involve much more than just finding somebody and sending them back. There is a process that involves courts and enforcement resources. If the executive deems it in the best interest to expedite or focus the time and resources they have on criminals instead of children and their families then he has every right to do that and not bog the system down. Like you said, nothing in DACA changes the law or the status of these people. I understand your objections but I simply don't agree and it isn't as cut and dry as you try and make it out to be or else the memo never would have made it through the lawyers and courts and been implemented for the years that it has been. I for one agree with the efforts that allow dreamers to stay in this country so of course I am going to back up the temporary measure that Obama put in place and encourage congress to now pass the dream act to make it law.

Alright already...you've tip-toed around long enough.
Your implication is clear...but I'll ask anyway....Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be amended to improve the livelihood and quality of life of Mexicans while compromising the livelihood and quality of life of your countrymen?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution was written for foreigners by foreigners?
Do you believe "We The People" really meant "We The People Outside Of The U.S.?
Are you starting to wrap your head around it all yet?
This is the part where you duck and run from this thread.
OR just man up and admit you're an anchor named Enrique so atleast we can confirm and understand your pathetic bias.

I think we should do our best to secure our border and track visas. I think we should enforce laws and deport people who we catch crossing illegally. I think dreamers should be granted legal status with a pathway to citizenship. I think the other 11 million undocumented in this country should be granted a pathway to legalization without the option of citizenship and with a probationary period that involves fines, education requirements and or community service. The legal pathway into this country needs reform and should be much more attractive than the illegal path.

Listen to yourself bud...you sound un-American as all hell...Everything you champion provides a benefit to Mexicans while jeopardizing the livelihood and quality of life of your fellow countrymen.
I think you're struggling to understand that our Constitution was written by Americans for Americans...our laws are for Americans to benefit from...not Mexicans. The fact that you hate that notion leads me to believe you may be posting from Tijuana? Please confirm.

Everything? How does added boarder security benefit Mexicans while jeopardizing the livelihood of Americans? You are just too blinded by your ideology to see that the only way to realistically solve this problem is by the solutions that I presented. The alternative is massive deportations or trying to "starve" them out. Neither of those are going to lead to a better path for our communities and for Americans. If you really want to work on the problem then you have to meet somewhere in the middle and what I presented is a compromise for both sides. It is too bad you can't see it. Its hard headed extremists on both sides that have stalled and prolonged this issue for as long as it has been.

You sprinkle in "added border security" as a diversion but come on man, we see past that shit.
"The alternative is massive deportations or trying to "starve" them out. Neither of those are going to lead to a better path for our communities and for Americans."
You're wrong.....Mass deportations would benefit REAL Americans big time. Why you ask? Because REAL American's do not benefit in any way, shape or form from the existence of illegal Mexicans...quite the opposite BIG TIME!

"If you really want to work on the problem then you have to meet somewhere in the middle and what I presented is a compromise for both sides"
HUH?
"Have to meet somewhere in the middle" WTF!
"Compromise" WTF!
We don't have to do shit but enforce our laws...the laws We The People put on the books. We don't need to "compromise" or make deals with foreign criminals. Again, our Constitution and laws are suppose to benefit AMERICANS FIRST....this is so simple.
WTF is wrong with you man? Is your wife illegal or something? Just come clean bud...where does your level of motivation to fuck over REAL Americans stem from? Help us understand you.