RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO

RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 10:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law.

Aylee -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 11:05:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. Ya know. . . he could do 5 million pardons. That would be legal and not in violation of Article 1 Section 8.

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 11:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. Ya know. . . he could do 5 million pardons. That would be legal and not in violation of Article 1 Section 8. Yep, but it would not goad the GOP into something he and the press can label as extreme.

mnottertail -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 12:24:03 PM)
In any case, there is nothing whatsoever illegal or unconstitutional about Obamas orders in this matter. Not even close.

cloudboy -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 1:08:07 PM)
Who cares! This is good for the United States and the economy. It's win-win for everyone but racists and nativist losers. Obama cut through the red tape, government logjam, regulatory nightmare, and helped protect the American Values of hard work, opportunity, family unity, and economic growth. FANTASTIC. This is so much better than the stupid Keystone Pipeline, which is nothing more than a two-year, temporary jobs program.

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 2:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Who cares! This is good for the United States and the economy. It's win-win for everyone but racists and nativist losers. Obama cut through the red tape, government logjam, regulatory nightmare, and helped protect the American Values of hard work, opportunity, family unity, and economic growth. FANTASTIC. This is so much better than the stupid Keystone Pipeline, which is nothing more than a two-year, temporary jobs program. There aren't enough jobs, so adding people who work cheap will improve things. You know who this will hurt the most don't you? African Americans. Even Obama has said so.

Lucylastic -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 2:29:05 PM)
This thread should be saved for posterity, LMAO snorts

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 2:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. You seem to have misread the law. The amnesty applied to people who arrived before 1982. The ability to defer deportations is not so time gated. For instance in 1989 Bush I used the law to defer deportations of Chinese in the US after Tiananmen Square and Bush II used the law to defer deportations in 2005 of students affect by Katrina and in 2007 he deferred the deportation of several thousand Liberians.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. Ya know. . . he could do 5 million pardons. That would be legal and not in violation of Article 1 Section 8. That only works if it's over and done with. They will still be here illegally, so as soon as he pardons them, they would all be, once again, here illegally. Amnesty is the only way that doesn't happen, so pardons won't work.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:37:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? They did it through congress. That's the difference. Nope. They issued EO's exactly like Obama just did. Get your facts straight. Prove it.

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:40:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. You seem to have misread the law. The amnesty applied to people who arrived before 1982. The ability to defer deportations is not so time gated. For instance in 1989 Bush I used the law to defer deportations of Chinese in the US after Tiananmen Square and Bush II used the law to defer deportations in 2005 of students affect by Katrina and in 2007 he deferred the deportation of several thousand Liberians. P-O-L-I-T-C-A-L A-S-Y-L-U-M

Aylee -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:44:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. Ya know. . . he could do 5 million pardons. That would be legal and not in violation of Article 1 Section 8. That only works if it's over and done with. They will still be here illegally, so as soon as he pardons them, they would all be, once again, here illegally. Amnesty is the only way that doesn't happen, so pardons won't work. I envisioned the pardon reading something like, "Forthwith you are not here illegally."

Politesub53 -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? Anyone who can spout "Ebobama" especially regarding someone of African heritage, not only has a "narrow question" but a "narrow mind"..... Someone will come along and tell me there is no racist connection with your sick term. Nice to see you displaying your true colours once again Truckin.

Aylee -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? Anyone who can spout "Ebobama" especially regarding someone of African heritage, not only has a "narrow question" but a "narrow mind"..... Someone will come along and tell me there is no racist connection with your sick term. Nice to see you displaying your true colours once again Truckin. While I am not sure how it would be pronounced, I read it as combining Ebola with Obama. So. . . not racist.

thishereboi -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 4:50:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? Anyone who can spout "Ebobama" especially regarding someone of African heritage, not only has a "narrow question" but a "narrow mind"..... Someone will come along and tell me there is no racist connection with your sick term. Nice to see you displaying your true colours once again Truckin. Well I admit you are the first one I have ever heard connect ebola with blacks but I have to say I am not surprised it was you. Makes me wonder if everything you see is so black and white.

Politesub53 -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 5:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Well I admit you are the first one I have ever heard connect ebola with blacks but I have to say I am not surprised it was you. Makes me wonder if everything you see is so black and white. What the fucking hell is wrong with you ? You also objected to the wording of the OP, I just went one better and called it for what it was. You seem happy to defend racism and pull me up for pointing it out, so fuck you. Are you seriously suggesting truckins tag, or a disease which currently mostly affects Africans being mixed with the name of an African American President isnt racist. I know you are an arsehole but I didnt think you were stupid enough to let your dislike of me to affect your reading capabilities.

Politesub53 -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 5:03:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee While I am not sure how it would be pronounced, I read it as combining Ebola with Obama. So. . . not racist. See my reply to THB. But in your own time and words what the hell do you see the following to mean; "What do you get if you cross a Kenyan and the White House? Ebola."

Aylee -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 5:09:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee While I am not sure how it would be pronounced, I read it as combining Ebola with Obama. So. . . not racist. See my reply to THB. But in your own time and words what the hell do you see the following to mean; "What do you get if you cross a Kenyan and the White House? Ebola." I do not understand the joke. Can you explain it to me? As far as the joining of Ebola and Obama, I took it as a reference to the "It cannot come here" with the first Ebola patient showing up, the Ebola Czar (eye roll) and other failures of the CDC.

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 5:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. Ya know. . . he could do 5 million pardons. That would be legal and not in violation of Article 1 Section 8. That only works if it's over and done with. They will still be here illegally, so as soon as he pardons them, they would all be, once again, here illegally. Amnesty is the only way that doesn't happen, so pardons won't work. Wrong! He could pardon them just like Bush I pardoned Weinberger before he stood trial.

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 5:25:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant. The 86 law only applied to people who came into the country before 82, Obama rewrote the law to cover people who came in 29 years later. The president cannot rewrite law. You seem to have misread the law. The amnesty applied to people who arrived before 1982. The ability to defer deportations is not so time gated. For instance in 1989 Bush I used the law to defer deportations of Chinese in the US after Tiananmen Square and Bush II used the law to defer deportations in 2005 of students affect by Katrina and in 2007 he deferred the deportation of several thousand Liberians. P-O-L-I-T-C-A-L A-S-Y-L-U-M Wrong. Look into it. Bush issued a blanket deferral. Some of those students might have been able to apply for asylum but surely not all.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875