Pres. Obama today ordered that young illegal aliens not be deported and that they be granted work permits.
How many ways is this wrong? America is a nation of laws where all
are treated equally - unless the administration chooses to waive the
law for some. Second, this country has millions of unemployed, and
teenage unemployment is stratospheric.
If immigration laws don’t apply, then which laws should Americans have respect for? Some of them…or none of them?
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
This was a necessary step towards the destruction of America. We are becoming a part of the Globe, and will cease to hold Nationalistic values.
ReplyDeleteAnarchy is what the left wants then they can declare martial law and take the last of our rights!
ReplyDeleteAll laws should be respected, including the ones that limit the power of the President and the one about Treason.. Answer? ALL laws should be respected, except the ones found to be unconstitutional. Like Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way...to get a permit to stay in the US he said they must prove they have a residence so when Romney takes over they will know where to go find them and round 'em up, and deport them. Where in the constitution does it says the President can change the defenition of the word illegal?? Or change any law?? This guy has gotta go...
ReplyDeleteThis guy knows exactly what he is doing. He sat out to destroy our Country and working hard to do it. Please remember this in November. ,Problem is, there are many in this Country that just don't give a crap.
ReplyDeleteThe only law they want to enforce these days is the highly abuse & lack of proff it works is the sex offender laws. They have seemed to forgot about drug laws..as drug dealers feed our children drugs and make them useless as citzens and then abuse them in all type of ways for them to get there drugs and no drug offender registry ?? They seemed to have forgotten about gun laws as you read more and more deaths / injury from guns everyday and still no public gun registry ??? You can beat and abuse your spouse and laws are forgotten and still no spousal abuse registry ??? You get the picture ?? BUT do not get snared in the sex offense trap for something as dumb as peeing in the alley and you are screwed on the list for years to come...??? WAKE UP AND DESTROY the sex offenders list before YOU end up on it and will be the only one jammed by our country laws as other criminals are allowed to run free ??
ReplyDelete5:26 PM
ReplyDeleteNot to be rude but, I couldn't understand what you wrote.
5:26 Tell us how you feel about drug laws.
ReplyDelete5:26 Translation - he peed in an alley and got put on the sex offenders list.
ReplyDeletethis is a lawless country,
ReplyDeleteminorities have made it this way.
I love it , bang bang so what buttercup.
We will rule america , blacks and hispanics will rule.
Here is a better way to say it 6:40 pm
ReplyDeleteThe Only Laws they seem to want to enforce is the highly costly and yet to be effective sex offender laws. As lets face it. If the sex offender registry was SO effective? Why not create one for all offenses and we can then see how effective registries are .
Obama Romney Truth be told they are all puppets of Bilderberg. NWO
ReplyDeleteTo 4:24, please show us in the Constitution where the federal government has the authority to limit immigration? You want the president to follow the Constitution; maybe he's doing that since our immigration laws are unconstitutional.
ReplyDeletehe wants anarchy. bottom line...
ReplyDeletemack said...
ReplyDeleteHere is a better way to say it 6:40 pm
Thank you for trying, it helped some.
maybe he's doing that since our immigration laws are unconstitutional.
June 17, 2012 8:14 PM
Would you like to explain HOW our immigration laws are unconstitutional?
You might want to put down the taco first.
Desperate for votes
ReplyDeleteTo 10:48, any federal restrictions on immigration are unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to restrict immigration. Any Tea Partier who says they revere the Constitution and that the federal government should only do those things the Constitution allows have to oppose all federal immigration laws.
ReplyDeleteSo is the next Vice President wrong on this? Many "right" thinking conservative Republicans and talk show hosts are accepting that this program is a realistic solution to a long running complex problem.
ReplyDelete8:14 AM
ReplyDeleteYou are correct when you speak of the federal government have no immigration authority.
But the individual states have always had the authority to allow or disallow who crosses into their borders.
Sure, 9:30, but we're talking about federal laws here. The President is refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law, as you admit. So he's doing just what Tea Partiers want. I'm not sure why he's being condemned.
ReplyDeleteThe President is handing freebies out to the illegal immigrants. That is why he is being condemned.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws as it has with regard to immigration. To say that the Federal government has no authority to create immigration laws is as absurd as saying the Fed has no power to create any law.
ReplyDeleteFederal policy on immigration has been founded on the plenary power doctrine, which holds that the political branches — the legislative and the executive — have sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteTo 12:23, please show me in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution where it grants Congress that power. The things the Constitution says Congress can do is limited and says nothing regarding immigration.
ReplyDeleteTo 12:35, perhaps, but that doctrine holds a very expansive view of what the federal government can do. You can embrace that doctrine and give up on the concept of limited government. Or you can do like the Tea Partiers are doing and embrace the Constitution and the limited powers it grants the federal government. If you take the latter view, you must view all federal immigration laws as unconstitutional.
When immigration to the United States became a political issue over a century ago, the original understanding of each of the three branches of government was that immigration was to be regulated administratively by the political branches with minimal court intervention. One of the earliest and most significant immigration cases in Supreme Court history is Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), also known as the “Chinese Exclusion Case.” At issue in this case was whether an 1882 law barring all future immigration of Chinese laborers should work to exclude Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese immigrant residing in the United States who left in 1887 for what he thought would be a brief visit to China. Although the 1882 law contained a waiver provision designed to allow previously-admitted Chinese laborers like Chae Chan Ping to leave and return, that provision was discontinued by a new act of Congress in 1888 while Chae Chan Ping was on his return voyage to the United States. Upon arrival, he was denied entry. In upholding his exclusion, the Court recognized an inherent federal power to exclude non-citizens, even though such power is not clearly written into the Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the Court held:
ReplyDelete“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”
Most significantly, the Court held that decisions by the “legislative department” to exclude aliens are “conclusive upon the judiciary.” The Court continued:
“Whether a proper consideration by our government of its previous laws, or a proper respect for the nation whose subjects are affected by its action, ought to have qualified its inhibition and made it applicable only to persons departing from the country after the passage of the act, are not questions for judicial determination. If there be nay just ground of complaint on the part of China, it must be made to the political department of our government, which is alone competent to act upon the subject.”
By holding as it did, the Court affirmed the political branches’ authority to exclude aliens as the branches see fit. The Court signaled an unwillingness to second-guess what it considered policy-based decisions and gave strong deference to both Congress and the executive branch in the area of immigration, thus forming the basis of the plenary power doctrine.
12:48 if the law of the land were as "cut and dry" as you'd like to make it out to be, we wouldn't need lawyers now would we?
ReplyDelete"To 12:23, please show me in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution where it grants Congress that power. The things the Constitution says Congress can do is limited and says nothing regarding immigration."
ReplyDelete12:48: Must I do all the heavy lifting for you??? Have you read the Constitution at all?
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Clause 4:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Yes, 3:07, I've read the Constitution. Perhaps you need to read a dictionary. "Naturalization" isn't the same thing as "immigration." I'm fine with Congress setting the laws about who can become a citizen (that's what naturalization is, you know). But nowhere does it give Congress the power to limit immigration.
ReplyDeleteGood healthy debate going on here. I will just add if we had no immigration enforcement, at whichever level, would we not be swamped with people wanting to come here?
ReplyDeleteOne thing about case study that I have found is that when you find a case, you still have to keep searching to see if it has been overturned, modified or confirmed.
I am not a lawyer but that is my limited understanding of it.
3:21 If you are fine with "Congress setting the laws about who can become a citizen" then why are you arguing that the President has the same ability to do so as well?. He is saying anyone under 30 can become a citizen...isn't that the job of Congress according to your argument ?
ReplyDeleteTo 4:14, the president didn't change any naturalization laws. All he did was order DHS to allow some young illegal immigrants to get a temporary visa. The citizenship process is the same as it ever was.
ReplyDelete6:31 The President doesn't have the authority to do that. He can grant pardons but he can't issue changes to immigration by himself which is what he did and you know it. You just fail to admit it.
ReplyDelete