- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
EXCLUSIVE: President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action -- including suspending deportations for millions -- as early as next Friday, a source close to the White House told Fox News.
Critics in the Senate say those who receive deferred action, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, receive work authorization in the United States, Social Security numbers and government-issued IDs.
Another portion that is sure to cause consternation among anti-"amnesty" lawmakers is a plan to expand deferred action for young people. In June 2012, Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, entered before June 2007 and were under 31 as of June 2012. The change would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.
Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week | Fox News
First, is this constitutional and legal to do this without Congressional involvement?
Second, what percentage of Americans actually want Obama to do this?
Third, what is the motivating factor behind doing this without any input from Congress?
And last, how is it that only Fox News was able to get these details? Lack of reporting skills, or an organized distraction from the mainstream media?
When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb
then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the entire matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
The president's plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency. The source said the plan could be announced as early as Nov. 21, though the date might slip a few days pending final White House approval.
I didn't see anything in the article that looked unconstitutional, but I am sure that the republicans who keep demanding border security will say it is unconstitutional for him to strengthen border security.
Do what? Not all 10 points were discussed and until we see the details, we may or may not support his plan.
To get something done I suppose, not that motivation matters in this issue regarding the Constitionality of it.
I have no idea whether or not Fox News is the only one who has it. It is possible that others have it and are doing background, shooting segments, researching the legality or whatever. Being the first does not mean that they are the exclusive knowers in these type situations.
The source... a US government agency.. no way to check their source or verify the story other than to wait until the 21st. and see. Is this story real, or just more nonsense? Stay tuned, folks, we'll soon find out.
The president can't modify the law via executive order. It's a facts that that's illegal.
I have seen nothing suggesting that he is modifying any laws, just directing that people prioritize their efforts in in a different way within existing laws.
Amnesty is either modifying the law, or refusing to enforce the law; both are illegal.
Nothing like working with the new house and senate.
Why not sit down and see which if any of these 10 points we can make a bill through the house and senate and he can sign it. You know...bipartisanship.
Nothing like working with the new house and senate.
Why not sit down and see which if any of these 10 points we can make a bill through the house and senate and he can sign it. You know...bipartisanship.
Amnesty in the context of immigration has a specific meaning and you haven't even entered into the parking lot to the ballpark with that post. Deferred deportation isn't amnesty anyway, and the Greedy Ol Party won't shut the government down before Christmas to stop Obama. Your side is going to lose on this issue. Wait and see. While you are at it, go to your local magistrate and swear out a warrant against the President of the United States and see where it gets you.
Anybody know where a copy of this document can be found? It seems like an odd thing to miss in a story about... ya know... the document itself...
Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week | Fox News·First, is this constitutional and legal to do this without Congressional involvement?
·
·
Amnesty is either modifying the law, or refusing to enforce the law; both are illegal.
Maybe you should look at what the republicans want before you speak of bipartisanship.
Simpleχity;1063977786 said:According to the New York Times, the document is still being worked on. Basically however, it seems that it will grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants who have been living in the US for at least five years.
New York Times - Obama Plan May Allow Millions of Immigrants to Stay and Work in US
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?