gryphonms
11 years ago
Question, does Obama have the legal authority to circumvent congressional law?
Abrignac
11 years ago
Much adieu about nothing. All it does is give illegals the right to apply for visas. No one will be able to apply for months. By then the new Congress will be in session with Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate. They will make sure there is no funding for the program. Obama will then chastise the Republicans for not passing common sense reform. Business as usual.
gryphonms
11 years ago
Agreed, but I do not like the idea that a sitting president can use executive order to alter a law. Also I do not see how he can legally do this.
Buckwheat
11 years ago

Much adieu about nothing. All it does is give illegals the right to apply for visas. No one will be able to apply for months. By then the new Congress will be in session with Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate. They will make sure there is no funding for the program. Obama will then chastise the Republicans for not passing common sense reform. Business as usual.

Abrignac wrote:



True. =d>

Same chit different day. Ball of confusion, that's what the world is today!!
ZRX1200
11 years ago
Soetoro operates under a platform of agitation. He has to piss people off so that there is always someone opposing him for the media to isolate and marginalize. He cannot function without a boogeyman to blame.
Krazeehorse
11 years ago
Not to hijack this thread but does anyone else think it might be time to review the law that automatically makes you a citizen if you're born here?
Gene363
11 years ago

Not to hijack this thread but does anyone else think it might be time to review the law that automatically makes you a citizen if you're born here?

Krazeehorse wrote:



Yes and it's my understanding it isn't really a law.

ZRX1200
11 years ago
I thought anchor babies were ok'd through the scotus via 14th amendment.
BuckyB93
11 years ago
Actually it more than a law. It's the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It's one of the Amendments that was ratified after the Civil War.
Abrignac
11 years ago


Yes and it's my understanding it isn't really a law.

Gene363 wrote:



Gene you surprise me. Last I heard, the constitution is the law of the land.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


Abrignac
11 years ago

I thought anchor babies were ok'd through the scotus via 14th amendment.

ZRX1200 wrote:




You would be referring to the Dred Scott case which affirmed that all persons born in the United States are citizens, including those born to slave parents.
Gene363
11 years ago

Gene you surprise me. Last I heard, the constitution is the law of the land.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


Abrignac wrote:



Their parent's presence here is under criminal circumstances. What happens to criminal evidence obtained outside of the law?

Abrignac
11 years ago


Their parent's presence here is under criminal circumstances. What happens to criminal evidence obtained outside of the law?

Gene363 wrote:




Regardless of the circumstances of the parent, the constitution seems crystal clear. BTW, have "their" parents been tried and found guilty of a criminal statute?

Absent a compelling reason, I'm against any attempt to grant amnesty as I assume you are, Gene. But, your argument, in my humble opinion, lacks merit.
Abrignac
11 years ago


Their parent's presence here is under criminal circumstances. What happens to criminal evidence obtained outside of the law?

Gene363 wrote:




Regardless of the circumstances of the parent, the constitution seems crystal clear. BTW, have "their" parents been tried and found guilty of a criminal statute?

Absent a compelling reason, I'm against any attempt to grant amnesty as I assume you are, Gene. But, your argument, in my humble opinion, lacks merit.
pdxstogieman
11 years ago

Actually it more than a law. It's the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It's one of the Amendments that was ratified after the Civil War.

BuckyB93 wrote:



Ha! There ya go citing the constitution, which certain folks here question the legality of because they don't like this part of it, at the same time they castigate Obama for allegedly usurping some other alleged "laws" that they don't specifically cite. Meanwhile John Boner, Mitch McConnell and the gang won't do squat about immigration reform one way or the other because that would involve perhaps taking a stand that they could later be held accountable for and they want to have it both ways as well as being able to criticize whoever does take any action.

****house lawyer's bar exam question #1: Specifically what action did Obama take that was illegal and what specific law was violated?
Abrignac
11 years ago

Ha! There ya go citing the constitution, which certain folks here question the legality of because they don't like this part of it, at the same time they castigate Obama for allegedly usurping some other alleged "laws" that they don't specifically cite. Meanwhile John Boner, Mitch McConnell and the gang won't do squat about immigration reform one way or the other because that would involve perhaps taking a stand that they could later be held accountable for and they want to have it both ways as well as being able to criticize whoever does take any action.

****house lawyer's bar exam question #1: Specifically what action did Obama take that was illegal and what specific law was violated?

pdxstogieman wrote:



He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3. wrote:



No lawyer here, but it would seem that by saying you are going to instruct your subordinates to ignore the fact that a large number of people are here in violation of immigration laws would at face value seem to violate the the constitution.
fiddler898
11 years ago
Sometimes simple morality trumps Boehner's refusal to bring a bill to the floor. Come to think of it, every time.
pdxstogieman
11 years ago

No lawyer here, but it would seem that by saying you are going to instruct your subordinates to ignore the fact that a large number of people are here in violation of immigration laws would at face value seem to violate the the constitution.

Abrignac wrote:



Agency law may be administered with regard to priorities and capabilities. It's against the law to steal a bicycle. It's also against the law to commit murder. Law enforcement agencies decide all the time which crimes they wil pursue as a priority and which they won't. Immigration law is not substantially contained within the constitution itself, so I'm not sure where anyone can claim it violates the constitution "at face value" or in any other way.
Abrignac
11 years ago

Agency law may be administered with regard to priorities and capabilities. It's against the law to steal a bicycle. It's also against the law to commit murder. Law enforcement agencies decide all the time which crimes they wil pursue as a priority and which they won't. Immigration law is not substantially contained within the constitution itself, so I'm not sure where anyone can claim it violates the constitution "at face value" or in any other way.

pdxstogieman wrote:




Very little law is actually contained in the Constitution itself. It's a framework. But, it does specifically direct Congress to pass laws and it does specifically direct the President to faithfully carry them out.

So using your analogy the President is free to pick and choose what he wants to do. Slippery slope indeed.
Gene363
11 years ago

Regardless of the circumstances of the parent, the constitution seems crystal clear. BTW, have "their" parents been tried and found guilty of a criminal statute?

Absent a compelling reason, I'm against any attempt to grant amnesty as I assume you are, Gene. But, your argument, in my humble opinion, lacks merit.

Abrignac wrote:



Actually, it is not crystal clear, more like the status quo established by a court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.


Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts." A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language". Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.


Users browsing this topic