Do you believe that President Obama granting green cards
to illegal immigrants is constitutional?
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Nothing but a political move. Definitely NOT constitutional. November is looming and I'm a lost Independent with nowhere to turn.
ReplyDeleteNO !!!!
ReplyDeleteNot only unconstitutional but wrong, destructive, stupid,........
ReplyDeleteHas anything that Obama has done been Constitutional should be the question.
ReplyDeleteNo
ReplyDeleteHey, why don't you show me in the Constitution where it gives the federal government power to pass any laws regarding immigration? Let me give you a hint: it ain't there.
ReplyDeleteAll those conservatives who say they revere the Constitution should oppose all federal immigration laws.
All these Companies who hired all those immigrants at low wages when things were boomimg dont need them now! Ask the local farmers and the "contract" chicken cathcers on delmarva! I say let the kids stay!
ReplyDeleteAll presidents break the law, but I think Nixon was the one with the audacity and pure arrogance to say, (paraphrased), "When a president does it, it's not a crime." All presidents, from both parties, think themselves kings who are above the law.
ReplyDelete11:23
ReplyDeleteArticle 1, Section 8, Clause 4 allows Congress to decides who gets naturalized so in effect they can pass immigration laws and decide who gets in and who doesn't
I think they need to be here for more than 5 years. Also, one of the "exemptions" is if they served in the military. Now, how can someone serve in the military without a social security number?? Illegal is illegal.
ReplyDeleteTo 11:52, try again. "Naturalization" means the process of becoming a citizen. The federal government can control that process. But there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government power to control immigration.
ReplyDeleteIllegal is illegal...send the ALL home and come do it right.
ReplyDeletethis is definitely unconstitutional. People that have come to this country legally did what was required for them to become naturalized citizens. Why should those that are here illegally get a 'free' ride on the backs of those that did what was required to become a citizen. Of course B.O. wouldn't know how to become a legal citizen as he is not one; this is how he plans to make himself legal!!
ReplyDeleteNo. How much more is this going to cost us in welfare? Right now the parent is not able to get welfare only the anchor baby. Once they are "legal" will they now be able to collect welfare also?
ReplyDeleteUnconstitutional for sure.
ReplyDelete12:12 Congress ability to write immigration laws has been affirmed by the supreme court on several occasions that would make it settled law..Get over it and get a job. I'm pretty sure you were the one who got Godsmacked on several fronts on this very issue yesterday. All you can do is argue in circles and never actually address the facts presented to you.
ReplyDeleteTo 12:45, yes the Supreme Court has affirmed the "constitutionality" of immigration laws. In Dred Scott, it affirmed that no black person could be a citizen. In Wickard v. Filburn, it affirmed that a person growing wheat for himself on his own farm is engaged in "interstate commerce" and thus subject to federal regulation. In Plessy v. Ferguson, it affirmed that states could mandate segregation.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, the Supreme Court has made a lot of decisions that ignore the plain text of the Constitution. I've ignored no facts. I'm simply asking those who believe we should revere the Constitution and that the federal government should only do those things which the Constitution expressly says to justify federal immigration laws. They can't, because the Constitution doesn't grant Congress that power. The Supreme Court may have but the Constitution hasn't.
He is not holding up to his oath of office to uphold our laws and constitution. If he doesn't get what he wants working with congress, he issues an executive order that violates our exsisting laws. Dictator in every sense of the word!
ReplyDeleteWhat about the word "Illegal," doesn't he understand? He's pimping himself, and American taxpayers to get hispanic votes because he knows he's up-the-creek in the next election.
@11:23 - Reread Article 1, Section 8. It grants congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That means they can regulate immigration.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question at hand, the President is charged with enforcing the laws that Congress enacts. So in a state of non-emergency, he shouldn't be able to choose to ignore certain laws that he doesn't like.
The problem is the War Powers Act, which was passed for Roosevelt in the 30's. Technically, Congress gave up all of its power to the President because we were in an economic emergency. No President has ever given up that power ceded to them. As such, it's referenced in just about any Executive Order issued. It was the dumbest, most cowardly thing that our national legislature has ever done.
Damn people! He passed this ruling under an executive order by way of the Department of Homeland Security. The current legistration, the so called "Dream Act", is stuck in congress and appears that it will not be passed...so there's the reason he did it "his way". Unconstitutional???? Hell it's not even in the playbook!
ReplyDeleteObama does not care about our constitution, why should he follow it. This man will do anything to get re-elected.
ReplyDeleteTo 2:22, since "naturalization" is the process of a non-citizen becoming a citizen, I don't see how that gives Congress the power to regulate immigration, which is a non-citizen entering the country. The two are separate things.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to take an expansive view of the Constitution, that's fine. You can join your liberal buddies who want to involve the federal government in every aspect of our nation's life. You can support Obama as he twists the Constitution to enact ObamaCare (after all, by your reading, I'm sure the power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to force people to buy insurance). You can support other efforts to undermine the plain text of the Constitution.
As for me, I think the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to only those things listed in the Constitution. It may be a quaint view, but I like it.
3:07 If you allow the States to manage immigration then states like MD, CA, MA (blue states) would just allow immigrants to arrive at their shores via canoe or whatever and enter even if we get the border sealed...so how do you wrap your mind around that scenario...I completely support Arizona's attempt to curb illegal immigration due to the Fed's lack of action. And, you sound like a lib trying to subvert your identity due to your tea party remarks yesterday..I doubt very seriously that you are Conservative or Libertarian or even support the notion of small, limited government.
ReplyDeleteTo 3:36, I am indeed a Libertarian who is consistent in my belief in small government, the free market, and the Constitution. I don't all of a sudden become a believer in Big Government and throw out the plain words of the Constitution when it comes to immigration like so many conservatives do. Their immigration views is consistent with anyone who thinks we have a "living Constitution" and who wants the government to regulate and micromanage our lives.
ReplyDeleteDuring the first 100 years of our country we had open borders. The Founding Fathers didn't believe in immigration restrictions. They didn't allow the federal government to restrict immigration. Any Tea Partier who supports immigration restrictions is turning his back on our Founders and our Constitution. It's that simple.
Since when did Libertarians start to call for the end of sovereignty of the United States of America and the right for it to protect its borders? 4:41 you are at odds with Ron Paul on this issue
ReplyDeletesi
ReplyDeleteThe President doesn't make laws.
ReplyDeleteanonymous 7:36, no, he just breaks them.
ReplyDelete3:07 If you allow the States to manage immigration then states like MD, CA, MA (blue states) would just allow immigrants to arrive at their shores via canoe or whatever and enter even if we get the border sealed...so how do you wrap your mind around that scenario..
ReplyDeleteJune 19, 2012 3:36 PM
I wrap my mind around that scenario very easily. That's what has been done throughout history.
I simply looked it up and shared it here.
You may want to kill the messenger, (me), but that's just the way it was and is.
You can call me any name you like. It doesn't bother me. I know who I am and I usually research before I write anything here.
Previous comments that you think I made, hmmm, not sure which ones you mean.
First time I have checked this thread in a day or two.
They may be mine or you could have me confused with someone else. Easy to do on here when using anonymous.
Have a nice day.
June 19, 2012 3:36 PM
ReplyDeleteDisregard previous comment. You were not even addressing me.
I should have 'researched' that before I responded. lol.
I did make a comment about the states controlling immigration on another thread and thought it was this one.
My bad.
It's time to stop mincing words and call it how we see it; how it really is. Not one of us who understands can stay silent any longer.
ReplyDeleteObama is a neo-communist zealot openly defying Congress,the Constitution and the will of the people. If this country returns him to the White House for another term, then the country deserves whatever hell befalls it.