Why have laws?

[TemplarKormac]

I should have been in bed hours ago. I have a lawn to mow. I'll pick this up later today. Truce?

 

[Skylar]

Weren't you just lecturing me about being 'civil'? Or was that just general bellyaching?

Smiling...I haven't lowered myself by calling you a 'buffoon', have I? If I do, feel free to complain about how I'm being uncivil.

And for the fourth time, its the *law* that is preventing unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries from being deported. And the reason we have so many of these children in custody is because Obama is following the law.

So, um.....what are you complaining about exactly?

When I press you for an answer, you offer babble about 1928 court decisions. Or how we're 'disingenuous' because we mentioned Bush. Or just start spewing silly little insults.

But you've failed utterly to offer us anything about obama's handling of this situation that you even have a problem with. If even you have no idea what you're belly aching about, imagine our confusion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Weren't you just lecturing me about being 'civil'? Or was that just general bellyaching? I've already caught both of you trying to say this "law Bush Passed" is the reason why we have this problem. That is disingenuous. Essentially blaming him for this, when the law was passed unanimously. Yeah, you were lying alright. Such insinuations were ham fisted and you know it. Bush had no ulterior motive in passing that law. It was very well intentioned.

Spare me.

It's no more "disingenuous" than your OP blaming Obama for everything was. You're reading way too much into the mention of Bush.

No one has come close to implying that the law itself is somehow "bad", or that Bush had any "ulterior motives". That came from your imagination, not anything we said.

I mentioned that Bush passed it due to the inevitable claims of "See! It's still Obama's fault" that would have happened had Obama been the one to sign it.

The problem here is that it is his fault. He has made policy decisions that have made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay here.

Like what?

Obama has not made any "policy decisions" that are stopping the deportation of these children.

And then suddenly, I have you defaulting to a law Bush passed. Really? So, your mention of Bush was a deflection. Obama's actions in the here and now have signaled to many abroad that they can just waltz in here freely without fearing deportation.

No, it wasn't a "deflection" - it's the entire reason these children are not able to be deported faster. Nothing Obama has done is preventing these children from being sent home.

Whatever you think Obama has "signaled" is entirely beside the point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's no more "disingenuous" than your OP blaming Obama for everything was. You're reading way too much into the mention of Bush.

No one has come close to implying that the law itself is somehow "bad", or that Bush had any "ulterior motives". That came from your imagination, not anything we said.

I mentioned that Bush passed it due to the inevitable claims of "See! It's still Obama's fault" that would have happened had Obama been the one to sign it.

The problem here is that it is his fault. He has made policy decisions that have made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay here.

Like what?

Obama has not made any "policy decisions" that are stopping the deportation of these children.

And then suddenly, I have you defaulting to a law Bush passed. Really? So, your mention of Bush was a deflection. Obama's actions in the here and now have signaled to many abroad that they can just waltz in here freely without fearing deportation.

No, it wasn't a "deflection" - it's the entire reason these children are not able to be deported faster. Nothing Obama has done is preventing these children from being sent home.

Whatever you think Obama has "signaled" is entirely beside the point.

So why are these children here then? Surely it can't just be that law? Yeah, his signals mean enough for those people to send a torrent of children to our border. So his 'signals' have plenty to do with it.

In 2012, Obama issued a decree allowing 800,000 illegal immigrant teenagers to work here legally. That was a dramatic policy shift, after bragging he had deported more illegals than Bush did. And yes, Obama has made policy decisions stopping them from being deported.

 

[Skylar]

Sure, it took me all of 15 minutes to read. I am a practiced speed reader. So stick to your argument, not your ad hominem.

Says the poster who lead with 'Buffoon'. But oddly, feels the need to whine about ad hominem.

Inconsistency is as inconsistency does, I suppose.

. The other problem here is that these children are from contiguous and non contiguous countries. So, where was my lie? They come from Mexico (a contiguous country to the US) and Honduras and other Central American countries (non contiguous countries.)

Why right here:

You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US.

Reading really isn't your bag, is it? Try again, this time reading for comprehension. I'll even help you by bolding your blunder:

"Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster."

Skylar

And we all know you've seen the above...as you posted it. Yet you intentionally lie about my argument, claiming I'm making an argument for children in contiguous countries. Why lie? Its pointless and you're not very good at it.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what problem you have with Obama's handling of this situation. You've lamented about it. But when pressed for why, you've got nothing.

Which is pretty much where you started.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Weren't you just lecturing me about being 'civil'? Or was that just general bellyaching?

Smiling...I haven't lowered myself by calling you a 'buffoon', have I? If I do, feel free to complain about how I'm being uncivil.

And for the fourth time, its the *law* that is preventing unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries from being deported. And the reason we have so many of these children in custody is because Obama is following the law.

So, um.....what are you complaining about exactly?

When I press you for an answer, you offer babble about 1928 court decisions. Or how we're 'disingenuous' because we mentioned Bush. Or just start spewing silly little insults.

But you've failed utterly to offer us anything about obama's handling of this situation that you even have a problem with. If even you have no idea what you're belly aching about, imagine our confusion.

All you've thrown at me were words. And you have the gall to mince words? Correct my grammar as a means to an argument?

I have a problem with someone who flouts Congress routinely, then suddenly decides to cooperate with them by asking them to change the law. That is unseemly behavior given his previous attitudes regarding Congressional authority. Obama is following a law, yes. I get that. He follows the law when it suits him.

Now if you will excuse me. I needn't bother debating someone who wants to debate my behavior more than his own point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The problem here is that it is his fault. He has made policy decisions that have made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay here.

Like what?

Obama has not made any "policy decisions" that are stopping the deportation of these children.

And then suddenly, I have you defaulting to a law Bush passed. Really? So, your mention of Bush was a deflection. Obama's actions in the here and now have signaled to many abroad that they can just waltz in here freely without fearing deportation.

No, it wasn't a "deflection" - it's the entire reason these children are not able to be deported faster. Nothing Obama has done is preventing these children from being sent home.

Whatever you think Obama has "signaled" is entirely beside the point.

So why are these children here then? Surely it can't just be that law? Yeah, his signals mean enough for those people to send a torrent of children to our border. So his 'signals' have plenty to do with it.

Ask the children "why" they're here - it's entirely beside the point. Legally, they will all be deported.

Obama is not responsible for children in other countries not understanding our laws.

In 2012, Obama issued a decree allowing 800,000 illegal immigrant teenagers to work here legally. That was a dramatic policy shift, after bragging he had deported more illegals than Bush did. And yes, Obama has made policy decisions stopping them from being deported.

That "policy shift" still has nothing to do with the recently arrived unaccompanied minors, and has absolutely no affect on their legal status in this country.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, his signals mean enough for those people to send a torrent of children to our border. So his 'signals' have plenty to do with it.

You're arguing your opinion, where you claim to speak for both Obama and tens of thousands of children. You speak for neither. And of course, this latest red herring has nothing to do with your claims of Obama 'ignoring the law'.

Its the law that has prevented these children from being immediately deported. And Obama is following the law.

So what's your problem with Obama's handling of the situation? If you complain when you believe Obama isn't following the law and complain when you believe Obama is following the law....then you're just being hypocritical. As its clearly not your perception of Obama's compliance with the law behind your complaints.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So I ask again, where was my lie? Calling me a liar without indisputable evidence is quite uncivil.

 

[Skylar]

All you've thrown at me were words.

Smiling....as opposed to what? Its not like water balloons or rose petals are an option on a message board. And my point is simple: You can't articulate a single point of Obama's handling of this situation that you disagree with.

The law prevents these children from being immediately deported. And Obama's following the law. Which is what you claim he should do.

When you're complaining even when Obama is doing *exactly* what you claim he should do.....its clearly not Obama's actions that are motivating your complaints.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All you've thrown at me were words.

Smiling....as opposed to what? Its not like water balloons or rose petals are an option on a message board. And my point is simple: You can't articulate a single point of Obama's handling of this situation that you disagree with.

The law prevents these children from being immediately deported. And Obama's following the law. Which is what you claim he should do.

When you're complaining even when Obama is doing *exactly* what you claim he should do.....its clearly not Obama's actions that are motivating your complaints.

Smile all you want, friend. But you called me a liar and cannot prove it.

Moving on.

 

[Skylar]

So I ask again, where was my lie? Calling me a liar without indisputable evidence is quite uncivil.

Wait...haven't you already called me a liar repeatedly? I take it you've conveniently exempted yourself from the standards you apply to others. Shocker.

And of course, here's your lie:

"You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US."

Templar Kormac

You intentionally and willfully misrepresented my argument. That's lying. You know I've indicated the law prevents the immediate deportation of children from non-contiguous countries. As demonstrated here:

"Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster."

Skylar

Which, of course, you already know....as you quoted the above sentences in one of your own replies. And its hardly the only example of such. I could show you half a dozen other citations of 'non-contigous', starting with my very first post on this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/363640-why-have-laws.html#post9397205

But then, you already know that. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lie about mine.

 

[Skylar]

All you've thrown at me were words.

Smiling....as opposed to what? Its not like water balloons or rose petals are an option on a message board. And my point is simple: You can't articulate a single point of Obama's handling of this situation that you disagree with.

The law prevents these children from being immediately deported. And Obama's following the law. Which is what you claim he should do.

When you're complaining even when Obama is doing *exactly* what you claim he should do.....its clearly not Obama's actions that are motivating your complaints.

Smile all you want, friend. But you called me a liar and cannot prove it.

Moving on.

Smiling....I've called you a liar and I have proven it. With post after post explicitly and laughably contradicting your claim. From my very first on this thread.

You lament about Obama even when he does exactly what you say he should do. You lie about my argument. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to do either.

Yet you do both. Moving on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Smiling....as opposed to what? Its not like water balloons or rose petals are an option on a message board. And my point is simple: You can't articulate a single point of Obama's handling of this situation that you disagree with.

The law prevents these children from being immediately deported. And Obama's following the law. Which is what you claim he should do.

When you're complaining even when Obama is doing *exactly* what you claim he should do.....its clearly not Obama's actions that are motivating your complaints.

Smile all you want, friend. But you called me a liar and cannot prove it.

Moving on.

Smiling....I've called you a liar and I have proven it. With post after post explicitly and laughably contradicting your claim. From my very first on this thread.

You lament about Obama even when he does exactly what you say he should do. You lie about my argument. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to do either.

Yet you do both. Moving on.

When immigrants are indeed coming from a contiguous country, that is not a lie, now is it? You have deliberately misconstrued my words.

All I heard from you two was "it's bush fault." Spinning the purpose of a law saying "That law Bush passed makes it harder for Obama to deport these children."

Obama has done nothing I wanted. Frankly I don't care. I caught you putting words in my mouth anyway. Telling me I know nothing about the law. I know plenty about it. So don't call me a liar without checking yourself first. Try launching that character assassination on someone else, okay? I will have nothing further to do with you. Good day.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?

What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?

Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.

As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.

Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.

You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)

And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

Bush didn't pass any laws. He signed them unto law. Your contention that this is a Honduran ploy regarding the Dream Act is ridiculous.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So I ask again, where was my lie? Calling me a liar without indisputable evidence is quite uncivil.

Wait...haven't you already called me a liar repeatedly? I take it you've conveniently exempted yourself from the standards you apply to others. Shocker.

And of course, here's your lie:

"You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US."

Templar Kormac

You intentionally and willfully misrepresented my argument. That's lying. You know I've indicated the law prevents the immediate deportation of children from non-contiguous countries. As demonstrated here:

"Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster."

Skylar

Which, of course, you already know....as you quoted the above sentences in one of your own replies. And its hardly the only example of such. I could show you half a dozen other citations of 'non-contigous', starting with my very first post on this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/363640-why-have-laws.html#post9397205

But then, you already know that. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lie about mine.

I'm not. Your argument hinges on "non-contiguous." The language says

"unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence"

And lo and behold, there are provisions pertaining to children from contiguous countries NOT being deported immediately, until such an agreement can be negotiated with their country of origin, or in this case a country located geographically in a contiguous manner with the mainland United States.

8 USC 1232 (C)

(C) Contiguous country agreements The Secretary of State shall negotiate agreements between the United States and countries contiguous to the United States with respect to the repatriation of children. Such agreements shall be designed to protect children from severe forms of trafficking in persons, and shall, at a minimum, provide that—

(i) no child shall be returned to the child’s country of nationality or of last habitual residence unless returned to appropriate employees or officials, including child welfare officials where available, of the accepting country’s government;

(ii) no child shall be returned to the child’s country of nationality or of last habitual residence outside of reasonable business hours; and

(iii) border personnel of the countries that are parties to such agreements are trained in the terms of such agreements.

Now, what was that about me lying? Have a seat. This law in question says nothing about "non contiguous" anything. It applies to any and all children found at the border.

 

[Skylar]

When immigrants are indeed coming from a contiguous country, that is not a lie, now is it?

Ah, but that wasn't your claim, was it? This was:

"You two are spinning the Wilberforce Act into something that is prohibiting the deportation of children from contiguous countries to the US."

Templar Kormac

And that was an obvious lie. No such argument has been made. You know that I've argued that the law prevents the immediate deportation of unaccompanied children from non contiguous countries. From my very first post in this thread, repeated again and again and again.

You didn't misunderstand. You didn't misspeak. You lied. You knew you were misrepresenting my argument when you did it. And laughably, even when paraphrasing yourself, you can't do it with any integrity or accuracy.

Smiling....I'm better at quoting you than you are. Which speaks volumes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"Skylar. I have been studying law, local, state and federal as a hobby for nearly 5 years. I probably know more about the law than you. Don't lecture me about law. Make Congress repeal that law, the president has no power to."

^^This is one of the reasons why you are mocked^^

Normal, competent people don't say things like this.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?

What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?

Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.

As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.

Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.

Were you this concerned when your boy Bush broke laws against not spying on Americans, not torturing prisoners of war, not releasing the names of spies to the media, and so on, or are you only really worried about 'the law' when the Black Guy does it?

Let's take a look at your histrionics on the IRS scandal. Yes, there was a law broken here. The law that says that if you are political group, you have to file as a political group and disclose who your donors are, not as a "social welfare" group and hide your donor list.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)

And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

Bush didn't pass any laws. He signed them unto law. Your contention that this is a Honduran ploy regarding the Dream Act is ridiculous.

So disprove it.