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

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

There is a big difference between looking at the law and prosecuting an individual on a case by case basis over one that's done collectively through an executive decision. While one looks at the individual's history and determines the nature and intent of the person behind the crime, the other dismisses based on their PREDERRED personal view of the law without necessarily a care or concern towards the one who committed the offense.

The collective approach (Obama's executive enforcement towards the required written legal consequence under the law) ignores or disavows the offenses or the seriousness of the crime being broken. Such an approach to a law being broken leads the accused to not carry a real respect for the law, as there is no recognition of wrong doing based on the lack of penalty being imposed contrary to the written law. Such a realization that a government (which imposed the law) is willing to look away or establish an excuse, only further enables the allowances of future similar crimes being viewed as "acceptable" and "tolerable". The government, in looking the other way contrary to what the law states, makes the government itself as the ENABLER of the problem ... not it's prevention. The evidence of this is found through President Reagan's efforts to allow citizenship towards illegals found in this country WITHOUT any heed to future illegal immigrant action. As a result, the Federal government encouraged or enabled others to come into this country illegally without fear of reprocussion. There was no respect for our Federal Laws and we now see that we have a bigger illegal immigration problem than what President Reagan faced as a result of that decision. As the old saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A quick pathway to citizenship or amnesty (which ever term you care to "feel good" about and use) "action" led to an opposite reaction which is an even GREATER number of illegals in the United States.

You see progressive liberals follow what "feels" good , but they are never willing to do the hard work when it comes to preventing problems from reoccurring. Just give them what they want, while the problem just keeps getting worse. I'd much rather have immigrants that have a respect for our laws, knowing that the breaking of them carries the weight of consequences, than illegals who like to see what and how much they can get away with.

 

[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.

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.

There is a big difference between looking at the law and prosecuting an individual on a case by case basis over one that's done collectively through an executive decision. While one looks at the individual's history and determines the nature and intent of the person behind the crime, the other dismisses based on their PREDERRED personal view of the law without necessarily a care or concern towards the one who committed the offense.

The collective approach (Obama's executive enforcement towards the required written legal consequence under the law) ignores or disavows the offenses or the seriousness of the crime being broken. Such an approach to a law being broken leads the accused to not carry a real respect for the law, as there is no recognition of wrong doing based on the lack of penalty being imposed contrary to the written law. Such a realization that a government (which imposed the law) is willing to look away or establish an excuse, only further enables the allowances of future similar crimes being viewed as "acceptable" and "tolerable". The government, in looking the other way contrary to what the law states, makes the government itself as the ENABLER of the problem ... not it's prevention. The evidence of this is found through President Reagan's efforts to allow citizenship towards illegals found in this country WITHOUT any heed to future illegal immigrant action. As a result, the Federal government encouraged or enabled others to come into this country illegally without fear of reprocussion. There was no respect for our Federal Laws and we now see that we have a bigger illegal immigration problem than what President Reagan faced as a result of that decision. As the old saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A quick pathway to citizenship or amnesty (which ever term you care to "feel good" about and use) "action" led to an opposite reaction which is an even GREATER number of illegals in the United States.

You see progressive liberals follow what "feels" good , but they are never willing to do the hard work when it comes to preventing problems from reoccurring. Just give them what they want, while the problem just keeps getting worse. I'd much rather have immigrants that have a respect for our laws, knowing that the breaking of them carries the weight of consequences, than illegals who like to see what and how much they can get away with.

The seriousness of the law being broken you say? In regards to DACA?! The only criminal act was potentially how their parents got into the country whether they had forged documents or illegally crossed. The kids are not guilty of that crime. They are only guilty of being here without documentation which is a civil offense on a federal level, not criminal, and it has been sanctioned in many cities.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I didn't t sprinkle anything, I gave a common sense plan about how to fix this problem. I don't think the 11 million undocumented here are screwing over Americans. More people adds to the economy. Kicking 11 million out shrinks our economy. The people getting screwed by the 11 million are the immigrants waiting in line to live here. The illegals cut the line and should be held accountable. You make it sound so simple and easy to "enforce the laws" but it isn't that easy. You can't just round up 11 million people, the problem is bigger than basic crowd control so we need to come up with other solutions