Trending Content
| +47 | Interviews Are So Fake | 31 | 18s | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 1d | |
| +29 | ADHD ! | 12 | 18m | |
| +28 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 28 | 1h | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 16h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 2d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 2d |
Career Resources
Wow, so many red herrings in this article that it's almost unbelievable.
To start out with, politically, what Bush or Reagan did is not relevant to the debate insofar as conservatives have long acknowledged that the amnesty--both the legislative and executive amnesty--granted by Ronald Reagan was a mistake. George W. Bush was the focus of an incredible amount of ire from the right for his immigration position. So trying to pass off Obama's actions because "Bush did it" is intellectually dishonest--there is zero hypocrisy on this (The Minutemen were founded in response to Bush's immigration policy). Even so, in almost every case the author cites, the use of prosecutorial discretion was highly focused (e.g. temporary extensions to Salvadorian citizens, halting Kuwaiti deportations during the Gulf War, granting amnesty to Nicaraguans during the Cold War when Nicaragua had a communist dictatorship). The author's position drips with intellectual dishonesty.
On the legal side, prosecutorial discretion is generally legally reserved for narrow reasons, such as lack of resources to enforce every law (see the speed limit, or even the tax code). However, Obama has not claimed that lack of resources is the reason he's granting this de facto amnesty. He's stated time and again on tape that he disagrees with the laws on the books and that Congress has failed to act (acknowledging Congress' role in writing law). He's stated literally dozens of times his reason for using prosecutorial discretion, which will obviously be used against him in a court.
But the most glaring and obvious error here is to say that Obama has the power to not only issue a blanket amnesty for 5 million people for no reason other than his policy disagreement, but that Obama also has the power to then grant temporary work visas. That goes far and above prosecutorial discretion--that is literally a violation of the law.
Finally, EVEN if Obama has the right to pick and choose the laws to obey, Congress has the Constitutional authority to challenge him on it by utilizing the power of the purse (appropriations), advise and consent authority, legislative delay, lawsuits, censure, and even impeachment and removal.
How hard did you read the article?
"President Obama is soon expected to take a step toward fixing our broken immigration system by issuing an executive order to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens"
As the article clearly states, his amnesty is targeted toward undocumented immigrants who are parents to US citizens. It's a decision to not deport the parents and putting the kids into foster care or whatever equivalent program that's used in these situations.
"But the most glaring and obvious error here is to say that Obama has the power to not only issue a blanket amnesty for 5 million people for no reason other than his policy disagreement"
I think the reason is pretty clear and the purpose of those constitutional powers isn't for when everyone gets along and are holding hands about the solution or proposed solution as the case may be. I searched the document and found no mention of working visas, Visa, and the only mention of "temporary" was stating that the measure was temporary and didn't grant them citizenship, just amnesty from deportation.
The article doesn't state temporary work visas. That's what sources at the White House say the order will include--temporary work visas. I do this crazy think like, ya know, read articles that don't include the ones posted by you...
We don't know exactly what Obama is going to order, but I've read that the order will include a lot more than parents of U.S. citizens. You don't get 5-7 million people granted de facto amnesty by halting deportations of parents of U.S. citizens.
This shouldn't affect elections for another 18 years, right?
Tyrant
Obama is such a garbage president. I chuckle though since this will only screw over the bleating fools that vote for him. Deport these people, fine businesses that hire illegals and pay Americans a wage high enough so they can live.
My theory is that the Democrats have aborted away 40+ million people in their voting base so they have to replace these voters by importing them from left-wing third world countries. The judges who support them will twist themselves into knots to ignore the actual words of the U.S. Constitution so that people like ArcherVice can triumphantly claim that the law is on their side when, in fact, the law is not on their side--the ruling of political appointees is on (or may be on) their side.
Whatever you say :-) I'm going to get some tacos.
It's pure race based politics. La Raza is an extension of the Mexican government and doesn't care about America. Sorry, but way more desperate people than those from Mexico. Send them home, punish companies that hire them and States that shield them.
This country continues to swirl down the drain.
Thank God. So much money wasted every year on INS bullshit at the federal, state, and local level
The INS hasn't existed in years, just an FYI. I don't see how enforcing the integrity of a nation's borders is a waste.
Fuga illum rerum aut temporibus ratione minus. Cumque magnam labore est non. Et illum illo optio voluptas voluptatum. Aperiam quaerat officiis ut officia voluptatibus. Facere omnis eaque placeat.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...