Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And the Executive has always had discretion in how to execute the laws.

Hence, Executive Orders.

 d-usa wrote:
And the Executive has always had discretion in how to execute the laws.

Hence, Executive Orders.

Correct. Though you now have an Executive Order that trumps Federal Laws establish by Congress. What Boehner is doing is getting the Judicial to Adjudicate.

Two cases

Only two Presidential executive orders have been overturned by the courts. The first involved a 1952 presidential order issued by President Truman, Executive Order 1034, placing the nation's steel mills under federal control in order to prevent labor strikes from affecting steel production and thus hurting the national economy.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Truman Order was unconstitutional because it overstepped the boundary between executive and legislative powers, holding that President's power to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution.[2].

The second executive order overturned by a court was issued by President Clinton. Executive Order 12954 prevented the federal government from entering into contracts with organizations that hire replacements for striking employees.[3] The court determined that the Order was regulatory in nature and preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees employers the right to hire permanent replacements.[4]

Neither of those cases have anything to do with what you are talking about.

So far you are claiming that the order from years ago has to do with that is happening today (which it doesn't).

You claim that prioritizing who to deport trumps federal laws (it doesn't).

And now you say that they are unconstitutional by comparing them to cases that have absolutely nothing in common with the whole immigration thing you are talking about. Nationalizing steel mills has nothing to do with deciding deportation priorities, and refusing to enter contracts with scap companies has nothing to do with deportation priorities.

 d-usa wrote:
Neither of those cases have anything to do with what you are talking about.

Just showing as I mention before that Boehner might be trying this route

So far you are claiming that the order from years ago has to do with that is happening today (which it doesn't).

The memo is still in effect.

You claim that prioritizing who to deport trumps federal laws (it doesn't).

Advance Parole I posted earlier prevents deportation on majority of illegals. DACA prevents deportation of kids. Those two Act within the Executive branch bypasses Federal Laws that are suppose to be enforced. The Morton memo clarifies those who can "legally" stay within the US concerning ICE. The Illegal Alien is then issued a Court Date with a Immigration Judge and is expected to return. They are not held in detention anymore awaiting their Court date. They are released.

And now you say that they are unconstitutional by comparing them to cases that have absolutely nothing in common with the whole immigration thing you are talking about. Nationalizing steel mills has nothing to do with deciding deportation priorities, and refusing to enter contracts with scap companies has nothing to do with deportation priorities.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Truman Order was unconstitutional because it overstepped the boundary between executive and legislative powers, holding that President's power to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution.[2].

I gave this as an example.The POTUS gave an Executive Order that bypasses Federal laws. The Executive Order is enforced within the admin agency and not the Federal Law that was established by Congress.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me further clarified on the Morton memo's

First One
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf

Followed by
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

Expanded a bit further
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/domestic-violence.pdf

The "Flag" thrown up by Napolitano
http://democrats.senate.gov/uploads/2011/08/11_8949_Reid_Dream_Act_response_08.18.11.pdf

Enforced afterwards by
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/s1-certain-young-people-morton.pdf

Cases reviewed before hitting Immigration Court
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/case-by-case-review-incoming-certain-pending-cases-memorandum.pdf

Clarification for ICE Lawyers
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/guidance-to-ice-attorneys-reviewing-cbp-uscis-ice-cases-before-eoir.pdf



The actual bypassing of establish Federal laws
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

Effecting Illegal Aliens apprehended by LEA
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/detainer-policy.pdf

Then really shutting down LEA
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1212/121221washingtondc2.htm

I'm somewhat out of order on memo's

Mr. Boehner has not given a clear reason for this pending litigation.

 Ouze wrote:
Mr. Boehner has not given a clear reason for this pending litigation.

I know
This OT
-->insert OT jpg.<---

I've a feeling though not all of Mormont memo's were known or previously discussed. D-USA mention what like it seems only one was known.

We all have a feeling that Immigration would be the main one follow by "others" as an example of POTUS over reach

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling though not all of Mormont memo's were known or previously discussed.

For example, I don't think his son even knows that his dying wish was for him to come home and take the black.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling though not all of Mormont memo's were known or previously discussed.

For example, I don't think his son even knows that his dying wish was for him to come home and take the black.

My first thought too.

Games of Throne withdraws

Morton memo's

Edit

Now waiting on Penny Dreadful season finale
(thinking Frankenstein going to meet Dracula this episode)

 Jihadin wrote:

Let me further clarified on the Morton memo's

I would love some clarification from you about how an execituve order that gives leeway for not deporting children that have spend a majority of their time or were born in the US somehow resulted in the sudden influx of children this year or how it somehow applied to the current situation.

First One
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf

Doesn't do anything to back up your initial point, it actually refutes it with this:

Priority 2. Recent illegal entrants

In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of entry, and to avoid a return to the prior
practice commonly and historically referred to as "catch and release," the removal of aliens who
have recently violated immigration controls at the border, at ports ofentry, or through the
knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a priority.

If you just came in, you are on a higher priority list to get send back home.

Followed by
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

Which also refutes your argument that the current crisis has anything to do with those decisions:

•the person's length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
•the circumstances ofthe person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly ifthe alien came to the United States as a young child;
•the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced

Which once again deals with children that have lived in the US and are for all cultural purposes "americans" and have no cultural (and often no linguistic) connection to the country that they are deported to.

Expanded a bit further
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/domestic-violence.pdf

Which also doesn't apply to the current influx of children without parents.

The "Flag" thrown up by Napolitano
http://democrats.senate.gov/uploads/2011/08/11_8949_Reid_Dream_Act_response_08.18.11.pdf

Which, once again, doesn't have anything to do with the current influx of children which you claim is the result of these decisions. In fact it once again says the oppositve of a blanket policy for children:

This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety. Immigration judges will be able
to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons. This
process will also allow additional federal enforcement resources to be focused on border security
and the removal of public safety threats.

Enforced afterwards by
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/s1-certain-young-people-morton.pdf

Do you even read the crap you post? Once again: you claim that the decisions made in 2011 regarding minors somehow resulted in the current influx of children because it promotes some sort of amnesty for children once they managed to get into the border and as proof you gave a document that states

-ame to the United States under the age of sixteen; is not above the age ofthirty; has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of this memoran

This memo does jack to back up your point that the current crisis has to do with these decisions.

Cases reviewed before hitting Immigration Court
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/case-by-case-review-incoming-certain-pending-cases-memorandum.pdf

Which doesn't do anything to back up your point. Prosecuters have always had discretion in deciding which cases to pursue.

Clarification for ICE Lawyers
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/guidance-to-ice-attorneys-reviewing-cbp-uscis-ice-cases-before-eoir.pdf

Once again, has jack-gak to do with the current situation:

-who is a child, has been in the US for more than five years, and is either in school or has successfully completed High School.
-who came to the US under the age of 16, has been in the US for more than five years, has completed High School...

The actual bypassing of establish Federal laws
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

1) Again it has nothing to do with the current situation of illegal children because it says:

has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date ofthis memorandum;[i]

So it doesn't affect any children that have been here less than 5 years back in 2012, and doesn't affect A SINGLE DAMN CHILD that came here afterwards.

And it doesn't bypass established Federal laws. It prioritizes which laws to enforce.

Kind of like a traffic cop that decides not to pull you over for speeding because he is responding to a 911 call where somebody is breaking into a house.

Effecting Illegal Aliens apprehended by LEA
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/detainer-policy.pdf

"We are going to prioritize apprehenting and deporting violent criminals"

Obama, what a monster...

Then really shutting down LEA
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1212/121221washingtondc2.htm

Which is the same memo as above. Which none of them back up any of the points you made, Which are:

1) Obama's decisions to grand amnesty and backdoor implement the Dream Act encourages the current influx of children into the US.
- Applies only to children that have already been here 5 years.
- Doesn't apply to children that have come here after the memo went into effect
2) Obama's decisions are violating immigration law.
- Handing out green cards and citizenship to people that are supposed to be deported might be violating laws passed by congress.
- Deciding which group to prioritize doesn't. Or else you would have cops telling you "Hey, Jihadin, sorry your family is in the process of getting murdered. But the law is that you have to have a working taillight so I'm going to finish writing you a ticket before trying to stop any murders, mkay."

 Jihadin wrote:
. D-USA mention what like it seems only one was known.

What in the holy hell?

YOU are the one that claimed that Imigration decisions in 2011 somehow created what is happening now.
YOU are the one who posted that memo.
YOU are the one who claimed that it says what you think it says.

How does your brain take gak that you posted and somehow decide that I'm the one who mentioned them?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
To think that someone would act outside partisan interests and favour restoring the system of checks and balances so that any POTUS cannot make end arounds of Congress is indeed an amazing thing.

And now you're assuming the only way to restore checks and balances is through this proposal by Boehner.

I'll just explain this briefly - if a member of congress was genuinely interested in restoring checks on the executive this isn't how it would be done. And more importantly Boehner knows that, as does everyone who is looking at this in even a slightly sensible way.

This is just cheap, headline grabbing politics, the worst kind of partisan politics.

 sebster wrote:

This is just cheap, headline grabbing politics, the worst kind of partisan politics.

But to a Republican base that eats and spits fire, this is a great way to rally the troops and confuse the real issues to skew in their favor.

Also, it is his fault.

It's pretty easy for Congress to use the existing checks and balances to reign in Obama and his executive orders.

The only reason the constitutional system of checks and balances isn't working is because Congress can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually do their jobs.

Like this immigration crap. If the legislature doesn't like the way that the executive prioritizes enforcement of the laws they pass they can pass additional laws that prioritize spending on things that they think the executive prioritizes on.

So if the legislature has a problem with Obama prioritizing violent criminals for deportation over children that have been here 5 years or longer then they can pass a law that says that this funding for ICE can only be spend on processes that focus on deporting children that have been here 5 years or longer.

 WarOne wrote:
But to a Republican base that eats and spits fire, this is a great way to rally the troops and confuse the real issues to skew in their favor.

Absolutely. Thing is, if Dreadclaw69 or one of the other usual suspects were to say that this is partisan schlock but that's okay because it's worth it to further the cause by firing up the base, then that'd be fine. I mean, on one level I kind of like the theatre of politics and the way arguments and attacks are crafted by one side or the other, and while this isn't a particular clever example it also isn't dangerous or damaging to the running of government*, and so on that level it's just part of the game.

But to argue that this is a genuine attempt to restore limits on the president... well that's just silly and needs to be called as such.



*Unlike say, the debt ceiling nonsense, which crossed the line past political theatre and in to actually harming the proper governance of the country.

Can I sue Boehner for using too many gerrymandering ideas and using idiocy?

 sebster wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
But to a Republican base that eats and spits fire, this is a great way to rally the troops and confuse the real issues to skew in their favor.

Absolutely. Thing is, if Dreadclaw69 or one of the other usual suspects were to say that this is partisan schlock but that's okay because it's worth it to further the cause by firing up the base, then that'd be fine. I mean, on one level I kind of like the theatre of politics and the way arguments and attacks are crafted by one side or the other, and while this isn't a particular clever example it also isn't dangerous or damaging to the running of government*, and so on that level it's just part of the game.

But to argue that this is a genuine attempt to restore limits on the president... well that's just silly and needs to be called as such.



*Unlike say, the debt ceiling nonsense, which crossed the line past political theatre and in to actually harming the proper governance of the country.

I call dibs on being Kevin Spacey.


It's a stupid political theater... if they truly wanted change, it'd be easy to psuh it. If Reid won't put it up to vote in the Senate, then it's on him.

Trying to actually use their checks-and-balances won't accomplish anything other that reinforcing the known "congress can get nothing done" stereotype.

Using an ineffective judicial approach lets him pretend that he stood up against evil Obama while also complaining about evil activist judges refusing to stand up for the constitution.

would love some clarification from you about how an execituve order that gives leeway for not deporting children that have spend a majority of their time or were born in the US somehow resulted in the sudden influx of children this year or how it somehow applied to the current situation.

Look up DACA . It was implemented in July 2012

Doesn't do anything to back up your initial point, it actually refutes it with this:

Priority 2. Recent illegal entrants

In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of entry, and to avoid a return to the prior
practice commonly and historically referred to as "catch and release," the removal of aliens who
have recently violated immigration controls at the border, at ports ofentry, or through the
knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a priority.

If you just came in, you are on a higher priority list to get send back home.

Miss the levels?

For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel should refer to the following new offense levels defined by the Secure Communities Program, with Level l and Level 2 offenders receiving principal attention. These new Secure Communities levels are given in rank order and shall replace the existing Secure Communities levels of offenses

Priority 1, Priority 2, follow by Priority 3. List of Priority. The release of Illegal Immigrants who do not fall within those three Priority

Which also refutes your argument that the current crisis has anything to do with those decisions:

•the person's length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
•the circumstances ofthe person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly ifthe alien came to the United States as a young child;
•the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced

Which once again deals with children that have lived in the US and are for all cultural purposes "americans" and have no cultural (and often no linguistic) connection to the country that they are deported to.

Miss this part?

ICE attorneys may exercise prosecutorial discretion in any immigration removal proceeding before EOIR, on referral of the case from EOIR to the Attorney General, or during the pendency ,of an appeal to the federal courts, including a proceeding proposed or initiated by CBP or USCIS. If an ICE attorney decides to exercise prosecutorial discretion to dismiss, suspend, or close a particular case or matter, the attorney should notify the relevant ERO, HSI, CBP, or USCIS charging official about the decision. In the event there is a dispute between the charging official and the ICE attorney regarding the attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial diScretion, the ICE Chief Counsel should attempt to resolve the dispute with the local supervisors of the charging officiaL If local resolution is not possible, the matter should be elevated to the Deputy Director of ICE for resolution

This effect Level 1, 2 , 3 and all other cases. They can determined who gets to see the Immigration Judger

Which also doesn't apply to the current influx of children without parents

Not really It effect those that are caught within the border. It effects an Illegal Alien that:

individuals engaging in a protected activity related to civil or other rights (for example, union organizing or complaining to authorities about employment discrimination or housing conditions) who may be in a non-frivolous dispute with an employer, landlord, or contractor.

The ones above that are good

Which, once again, doesn't have anything to do with the current influx of children which you claim is the result of these decisions. In fact it once again says the oppositve of a blanket policy for children:

This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety. Immigration judges will be able
to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons. This
process will also allow additional federal enforcement resources to be focused on border security
and the removal of public safety threats.

Totally missed the Flag

Do you even read the crap you post? Once again: you claim that the decisions made in 2011 regarding minors somehow resulted in the current influx of children because it promotes some sort of amnesty for children once they managed to get into the border and as proof you gave a document that states

-ame to the United States under the age of sixteen; is not above the age ofthirty; has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of this memoran

This memo does jack to back up your point that the current crisis has to do with these decisions.

The "Flag" and DACA. Miss the gradual rise of unaccompanied minors?

Which doesn't do anything to back up your point. Prosecuters have always had discretion in deciding which cases to pursue

It bypasses the Immigration Judge. Use to have been all Illegal Aliens have to stand before the Immigration Judge. Now it leaves the decision to the lawyers

1) Again it has nothing to do with the current situation of illegal children because it says:

has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date ofthis memorandum;[i]

So it doesn't affect any children that have been here less than 5 years back in 2012, and doesn't affect A SINGLE DAMN CHILD that came here afterwards.

And it doesn't bypass established Federal laws. It prioritizes which laws to enforce.

Kind of like a traffic cop that decides not to pull you over for speeding because he is responding to a 911 call where somebody is breaking into a house

DACA.

"We are going to prioritize apprehenting and deporting violent criminals"

Obama, what a monster...

Missed this

Given limited enforcement resources, three or more convictions for minor traffic misdemeanors or other relatively minor misdemeanors alone should not trigger a detainer unless the convictions reflect a clear and continuing danger to others or disregard for the law.

ICE will not come pick up a Illegal Alien being held by LEA for lesser charges

Which is the same memo as above. Which none of them back up any of the points you made, Which are:

1) Obama's decisions to grand amnesty and backdoor implement the Dream Act encourages the current influx of children into the US.
2) Obama's decisions are violating immigration law

Think you need to look up Dream Act, that was not passed by Congress and compare the Executive Order (DACA) and memo's issued by Morton

This guidance limits the use of detainers to individuals who meet the department's enforcement priorities and restricts the use of detainers against individuals arrested for minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes, helping to ensure that available resources are focused on apprehending felons, repeat offenders and other ICE priorities. It is applicable to all ICE enforcement programs, including Secure Communities.

This shuts down pick up for any illegal Aliens caught by LEA unless they fall in a guide line.

What in the holy hell?

YOU are the one that claimed that Imigration decisions in 2011 somehow created what is happening now.
YOU are the one who posted that memo.
YOU are the one who claimed that it says what you think it says.

How does your brain take gak that you posted and somehow decide that I'm the one who mentioned them?

Then I must have misread what you posted

But what the pundits are doing is taking a memo that deals specifically with "what do we do with children that grew up in the US or were born here" and claiming "this memo means that any child that jumps across the fence can never be send back and it is encouraging people to send their children into this country so that they can bring their families later".

Indicating one memo. If

I've a feeling though not all of Mormont memo's were known or previously discussed. D-USA mention what like it seems only one was known.

Makes you go on the attack

How does your brain take gak that you posted and somehow decide that I'm the one who mentioned them?

Stay Frosty

Edit

Missed your fist question. What's your explanation of the infux of unaccompanied children crossing the border D-USA.


Edit II

Forgot to mention to Ouze. USCIS cannot be defunded for it is a "Fee Based" agency

 sebster wrote:
Absolutely. Thing is, if Dreadclaw69 or one of the other usual suspects were to say that this is partisan schlock but that's okay because it's worth it to further the cause by firing up the base, then that'd be fine. I mean, on one level I kind of like the theatre of politics and the way arguments and attacks are crafted by one side or the other, and while this isn't a particular clever example it also isn't dangerous or damaging to the running of government*, and so on that level it's just part of the game.

But to argue that this is a genuine attempt to restore limits on the president... well that's just silly and needs to be called as such.

*Unlike say, the debt ceiling nonsense, which crossed the line past political theatre and in to actually harming the proper governance of the country.

I would, but as it stands the fact of the matter is that this is coming from a bi-partisan group. Until the Democrats involved distance themselves, or make their opposition to the lawsuit known, then it remains a bi-partisan action. Given the intense partisanship in US politics if the Democrats disagreed with it I have little doubt that they would have distanced themselves from Boehner's position.

And before you forget, sometimes you cannot rule out self interest. Some people are nervous about the mid-terms rather than the party line.

Fox did say "lawsuit" was to satisfy the voting group who wants to "impeach" the POTUS

 whembly wrote:
It's a stupid political theater... if they truly wanted change, it'd be easy to psuh it. If Reid won't put it up to vote in the Senate, then it's on him.

And more to the point, if there really was a terrible, horrible breach of the power of the president, then even in these partisan times congress would get its gak together and use their legislative power to prevent that.

 Jihadin wrote:
Fox did say "lawsuit" was to satisfy the voting group who wants to "impeach" the POTUS

Ok Sebster, are you listening; any talk of impeachment is nonsense to further the cause by firing up the base

 Jihadin wrote:

Look up DACA . It was implemented in July 2012

I don't see how the Morton Memo contradicts DACA. Indeed, DACA seems to reiterate, and clarify, the points laid out in the Morton Memo.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I would, but as it stands the fact of the matter is that this is coming from a bi-partisan group.

No, you don't even know what this is. You didn't even read the article in the OP, did you? "Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President."

This hasn't 'come' from the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, because there hasn't actually been a vote yet. In fact that group hasn't actually met at all since 2011.

The argument, that you seem to have gotten yourself quite confused about, is that if it did go to the BLAG then it would pass three Republican votes to two Democrats, because that's the make up of the BLAG. Because that's exactly how it played out when BLAG last met in 2011.

And your call that those Democrats might just be okay with this... do you even fething know who they are? It's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You honestly want to claim they're on Boehner's side in thinking this is a necessary check on the powers of the president. You honestly want to count on those two crossing the floor in order to claim this is bi-partisan?

 Jihadin wrote:


blah blah blah

There is really no point in my replying to stuff you post when it is pretty clear to anybody that you either don't read anything you post or don't understand it.

But just to clarify answer these two simple questions:

1) Do you believe that a pollice officer is violating the law when he ignores that you are speeding and chooses to deal with a rape instead?

2) Do you honestly belive that every single memo you posted that specifically states "this deals with children that have been in the country for at least 5 years prior to this memo being issued in 2011" is an amnesty program for children that have been in the country for 1 day in 2014?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

Missed your fist question. What's your explanation of the infux of unaccompanied children crossing the border D-USA.

Children fleeing poverty and gang wars trying to find a better life while also thinking (mistakenly ) that we have some sort of amnesty program for children despite the state department actively buying advertisement on central American radio and TV stations to inform them that we do not have an amnesty program and that their children will be send back once they are captured if they even survive the journey here.

Of course it doesn't help that we have idiots on TV who keep on claiming that Obama has issued amnesty to everyone and is inviting all the world's children to climb the fence and swim the river to freedom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Look up DACA . It was implemented in July 2012

I don't see how the Morton Memo contradicts DACA. Indeed, DACA seems to reiterate, and clarify, the points laid out in the Morton Memo.

And here is the quick and dirty on DACA:

A grant of deferred removal action does not confer lawful immigration status, alter an individual’s existing immigration status, or provide a path to citizenship. It does not do anything in violation of any congressional laws or action other than choose not to enforce it with this group and focusing on enforcing it on another group as well.

Individuals who request deferred action must have:
- Been under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012
- Arrived to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday
- Continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007 (last five years) to [June 15, 2012]
- Been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at the time of requesting deferred action from USCIS;
- Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or had any lawful immigration status expired on or before June 15, 2012
- Been in school at the time of application, or have already graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained a general education development (GED) -certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces
- Not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

To pretend that DACA has even a shred of authority over children that came here in the last 2 years and 15 days is just stupid.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Look up DACA . It was implemented in July 2012

I don't see how the Morton Memo contradicts DACA. Indeed, DACA seems to reiterate, and clarify, the points laid out in the Morton Memo.

I never said, I think, Morton Memo was counterproductive to DACA
Morton Memo's are the new guide lines within ICE to enforce DACA.
Morton Memo's are the new guide lines for deportation.

DACA was not approved by Congress
DACA was an Executive Order within the Executive Branch

Unaccompanied Minors are coming here are thinking DACA

Edit

Upon arrival they are taking to their families/relatives living either illegal or legally within the US. They cannot be deported due to policies within (Morton memo's) ICE.
Unaccompanied Minors fall under "Refugee Status" and also qualify for protection due to Human Trafficking laws.

So they are coming for DACA but fall under another policy.

 sebster wrote:
And your call that those Democrats might just be okay with this... do you even fething know who they are? It's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You honestly want to claim they're on Boehner's side in thinking this is a necessary check on the powers of the president. You honestly want to count on those two crossing the floor in order to claim this is bi-partisan?

Fantastic. Then they'll definitely come out as against this and expose it as partisanship. But until they do...

The first Morton Memo precedes DACA by a year,

DACA supersedes them all as, EOs tend to do, and the 2012 Morton Memos reinforce DACA.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Fantastic. Then they'll definitely come out as against this and expose it as partisanship. But until they do...

... you'll apparently try to claim that Pelosi and Reid must support this.

I mean, Boehner is playing to an audience, so it makes sense that he'd say something that he knows is ridiculous to score points with the right part of the electorate, but why would you bother to pretend that nonsense is true?

 sebster wrote:
I mean, Boehner is playing to an audience, why are you repeating his nonsense?

As has every politician before him, from every party that has ever existed.