quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

No one challenged it because it was an act of congress, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. The illegals got their amnesty but the rest of it has never been enforced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
No one challenged it because it was an act of congress, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. The illegals got their amnesty but the rest of it has never been enforced.

But there is an act of congress in effect now while Reagan and Bush issued exec. orders for holes in those bills that didn't cover everybody. And in fact the memo issued prior to Obama's exec, order specifically called it what it was, the exact same thing and what was upheld by prior courts called 'prosecutorial discretion.' The order was not law, it conferred no citizenship and indeed presented several requirements upon plaintiffs to be eligible for a 3 year delay in deportation.
The fifth circuit decisions is full of hypocrisy and a twisted logic of what had been settled law, the first of which was that Texas and the other 25 states, would suffer the good old classic...'irreparable harm.' They know that's bullshit as the Calif. state treasury has actually reaped financial benefits from applicants'requirements seeking to delay deportation.
Hopefully we'll see if Roberts and Scalia are also such hypocrits. HERE

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
No one challenged it because it was an act of congress, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. The illegals got their amnesty but the rest of it has never been enforced.

But there is an act of congress in effect now while Reagan and Bush issued exec. orders for holes in those bills that didn't cover everybody. And in fact the memo issued prior to Obama's exec, order specifically called it what it was, the exact same thing and what was upheld by prior courts called 'prosecutorial discretion.' The order was not law, it conferred no citizenship and indeed presented several requirements upon plaintiffs to be eligible for a 3 year delay in deportation.
The fifth circuit decisions is full of hypocrisy and a twisted logic of what had been settled law, the first of which was that Texas and the other 25 states, would suffer the good old classic...'irreparable harm.' They know that's bullshit as the Calif. state treasury has actually reaped financial benefits from applicants'requirements seeking to delay deportation.
Hopefully we'll see if Roberts and Scalia are also such hypocrits. HERE

The Obama EO isn't much like Reagan's or Bush's's (plural possessive of Bush?!?). They were more clarifications of a law that was passed by Congress. Obama's EO is because of Congressional inaction. Reagan's main EO only applied to children of parents who had mixed eligibility (one spouse was eligible while the other was not) under the law, but Congress hadn't spelled out what happened to children in that situation. HW Bush's main EO (which was later made moot by Congress-passed law) extended the deportation protection to spouses and children where the parents had mixed eligibility.

All the other EO's penned by Reagan or either Bush had to do with refugees, political asylum, in response to something completely out of the control of the immigrant (W had an EO protecting college students from deportation who were effected by Hurricane Katrina), or as a reward (rewarding illegals who signed up for military service). Obama's EO isn't anything like any of those.

Mr. Rodgers, you don't usually carry the liberal's water. You've really gone off the deep end on this one.

The Supreme robes may still decide that the EO is within the authorities of the President, but these are nothing like those of Reagan or either Bush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
No one challenged it because it was an act of congress, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. The illegals got their amnesty but the rest of it has never been enforced.

But there is an act of congress in effect now while Reagan and Bush issued exec. orders for holes in those bills that didn't cover everybody. And in fact the memo issued prior to Obama's exec, order specifically called it what it was, the exact same thing and what was upheld by prior courts called 'prosecutorial discretion.' The order was not law, it conferred no citizenship and indeed presented several requirements upon plaintiffs to be eligible for a 3 year delay in deportation.
The fifth circuit decisions is full of hypocrisy and a twisted logic of what had been settled law, the first of which was that Texas and the other 25 states, would suffer the good old classic...'irreparable harm.' They know that's bullshit as the Calif. state treasury has actually reaped financial benefits from applicants'requirements seeking to delay deportation.
Hopefully we'll see if Roberts and Scalia are also such hypocrits. HERE

The Obama EO isn't much like Reagan's or Bush's's (plural possessive of Bush?!?). They were more clarifications of a law that was passed by Congress. Obama's EO is because of Congressional inaction. Reagan's main EO only applied to children of parents who had mixed eligibility (one spouse was eligible while the other was not) under the law, but Congress hadn't spelled out what happened to children in that situation. HW Bush's main EO (which was later made moot by Congress-passed law) extended the deportation protection to spouses and children where the parents had mixed eligibility.
All the other EO's penned by Reagan or either Bush had to do with refugees, political asylum, in response to something completely out of the control of the immigrant (W had an EO protecting college students from deportation who were effected by Hurricane Katrina), or as a reward (rewarding illegals who signed up for military service). Obama's EO isn't anything like any of those.
Mr. Rodgers, you don't usually carry the liberal's water. You've really gone off the deep end on this one.
The Supreme robes may still decide that the EO is within the authorities of the President, but these are nothing like those of Reagan or either Bush.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

]ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
No one challenged it because it was an act of congress, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. The illegals got their amnesty but the rest of it has never been enforced.

But there is an act of congress in effect now while Reagan and Bush issued exec. orders for holes in those bills that didn't cover everybody. And in fact the memo issued prior to Obama's exec, order specifically called it what it was, the exact same thing and what was upheld by prior courts called 'prosecutorial discretion.' The order was not law, it conferred no citizenship and indeed presented several requirements upon plaintiffs to be eligible for a 3 year delay in deportation.
The fifth circuit decisions is full of hypocrisy and a twisted logic of what had been settled law, the first of which was that Texas and the other 25 states, would suffer the good old classic...'irreparable harm.' They know that's bullshit as the Calif. state treasury has actually reaped financial benefits from applicants'requirements seeking to delay deportation.
Hopefully we'll see if Roberts and Scalia are also such hypocrits. HERE

The Obama EO isn't much like Reagan's or Bush's's (plural possessive of Bush?!?). They were more clarifications of a law that was passed by Congress. Obama's EO is because of Congressional inaction. Reagan's main EO only applied to children of parents who had mixed eligibility (one spouse was eligible while the other was not) under the law, but Congress hadn't spelled out what happened to children in that situation. HW Bush's main EO (which was later made moot by Congress-passed law) extended the deportation protection to spouses and children where the parents had mixed eligibility.
All the other EO's penned by Reagan or either Bush had to do with refugees, political asylum, in response to something completely out of the control of the immigrant (W had an EO protecting college students from deportation who were effected by Hurricane Katrina), or as a reward (rewarding illegals who signed up for military service). Obama's EO isn't anything like any of those.
Mr. Rodgers, you don't usually carry the liberal's water. You've really gone off the deep end on this one.
The Supreme robes may still decide that the EO is within the authorities of the President, but these are nothing like those of Reagan or either Bush.

quote:


I disagree. It all comes down to prosecutorial discretion. In all cases prior with the exception of political asylum cases, it applies to those whose family has some covered by law and some that are citizens. Read the Times article and it explains the difference in prior rulings by the same judges.

They are not the same, though. While they all may have something to do with "prosecutorial discretion," the reasons behind the discretion are completely different. The reasons matter. Why was invading Afghanistan more popular than invading Iraq? Is President Obama's decision to use military assets in setting up a No-Fly Zone over Libya the same as President Bush's decision to use military assets to depose Saddam Hussein? Of course they are, under your rationalization. They were both Presidential decisions to use military assets without a Congressional Declaration of War.

Obama's EO's on immigration are not the same as Reagan's, Bush 41's, Clinton's, or Bush 43's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As a matter of law, they are the same. Otherwise, it is political issue (the reasons) and specifically because if that, one the courts have historically stayed out of...until now that is. Why now ?
As for your comparison of the use of the military...they are also a political issue and as a matter of law and have not yet gone before the courts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)