General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 41

"Look over here at the republicans. Pay no attention to the terrible policies perpetrated by the president and defended by liberals because.....just vote"

 

Not trying to be a dick here, but you really don't know what you're talking about in terms of executive deference. You're misrepresenting where it comes from, how it can be used, etc. There are limits on what the executive can do, an executive can't construct a statute in such a way that undermines its purpose or subverts an express intention of Congress.

You're missing the point, yes the President is using selective enforcement, but he's also increased enforcement from where it was under Bush. I am not suggesting that he "ignores immigration law altogether" as that would not be a permissible construction, but there is no justification for him increasing enforcement from where it was under Bush. Was Bush "skirting the law?" No. Obama is on pace to deport more people than the president's from 1892-2000 combined for during that span, defending it by some suggestion that he #actually is doing all he can is, again, absurd.

President Trump could not simply "ignore" the DREAM Act, again that isn't how executive deference works. And you fear mongering over a Trump presidency does nothing to justify Obama's actions because Obama HAS BEEN WORSE THAN THE GOP PRESIDENT THAT PRECEDED HIM. Perhaps instead of judging Obama on some unknown standard that may or may not be set by a potential future president, maybe it is better to judge Obama on the known standard of the past?

 

2001-2008: *Republican president deports too many people*
2008: "We must elect a Democrat to stop deporting so many people!"
2009-2016: *Democratic president increases deportations by more than 20%"
2016: "We must elect another Democrat because it could probably, maybe be worse under a potential Republican president!"

 

But an executive already has done those things--See Obama Administration and their arbitrary changes made to the ACA over the last 4-5 years. Same with ordering DOJ to stop enforcing DOMA. These are executive decisions to, as you say, subvert express intentions on Congress. Yes there are limits, and no a president can't do everything he/she wants, but that's the whole point--the past couple of presidents have literally been pushing the boundaries of those limits. Those boundries will continue to be pushed. Do you want Donald Trump being the guy who takes a crack at it next?

By definition, enforcing the law isn't skirting the law. Unless the law says "don't deport more than X amount of people", Bush enforcing it heavily was not skirting the law.

I never said Obama is "doing all he can", but I am pointing out the realities of the political climate in the country. He pushed pretty hard for DREAM (aka trying to do it through Congress), and when it became apparent that wasn't happening, he moved forward on EA/EO. And you see the backlash it has created already (see: helping trigger the rise of Trump)...if he was doing those things AND not enforcing immigration law, do you not see or understand what kind of social upheaval this could cause? The president half the country thinks is muslim, 40% thinks is foreign, god knows how many think is socialist and hates America, grinds the actions of INS to a halt? You think the rhetoric of the presidential campaign on immigrants is bad now.

Of course he could, just like Obama could ignore defending DOMA (this was a big deal, even if he was still enforcing it). Or the start date of the employer mandate in ACA. Or the federal minimum wage for federal workers (he technically shouldn't have been able to do this, but I suppose an argument for ambiguity could be made....he called it a raised min wage for them, but I'm guessing he could avoid any possible issues by just calling it a raise, since he's technically the boss). These are things that were done against expressly written and worded laws, not ambiguous clauses that the President generally has leeway on. Now that doesn't mean they're all illegal, or even bad things to do--it just pushes boundaries that open up the opportunity for other president's to try in the future.

I don't know how you're defining "worse" other then he deported more people. I don't really look at immigration as a sheer numbers game. Being able to protect more people via EA and use the bully pulpit to continually reinforce the idea that these people are human beings and not "aliens" or "illegals", etc...these things matter too. The rhetoric matters a lot, actually, when it comes to how these people are treated in their day to day lives. The known standard of the past? Sure. In the past, people who were brought here as children, and parents of American citizens, were just as liable to be deported as anyone else. Now there are protections in place to stop that from happening.

 

I don't recall thinking or assuming Obama was going to "stop deporting so many people". I do remember hoping he'd push for an overhaul of immigration law to help stop or stem the need for deportation.

And no, it will....not probably, not maybe...it will be worse under a Republican president. Period.

 

No they haven't.

These changes were not "arbitrary" as they were done to further the purpose of the law.

Obama did not "stop enforcing DOMA," he continued to enforce it until it was ruled unconstitutional and merely did not defend it's constitutionality. That is far different.

No, they are not.

They haven't been pushing the legal boundaries, they're abiding by the same boundaries that have been in place for more than 30 years. Stop giving in to false narratives that parties use to drum up support.

Obviously, you missed my point.

The political climate did not push Obama to be tougher on immigrants than Bush.

Lol no it didn't.

0.

Me "Obama deporting more people than any president ever is shitty as fuck" you "HE CAN'T JUST GRIND THE ACTIONS OF THE INS TO A HALT!"

You understand the difference between not defending a constitutional challenge to a piece of legislation while still enforcing it to the letter of the law and ignoring laws because you don't agree with them politically right?

This is perfectly within executive deference since it wasn't done arbitrarily and/or done to subvert the ACA's purpose.

No, they really didn't.

Funny how you resort to utilitarian justifications for voting Hillary over Trump, but discard utilitarianism here. And percentages have gone up too.

It's okay to treat undocumented immigrants as if they're not human beings as long as we do it with a smile!

Not as much as the policy.

Lol and that is defending Obama increasing deportations how?

 

this is real somehow

 

over/under that he actually ate it?

 

Remember how the DHS under Obama intentionally misled the public and local lawmakers over its Secure Communities program that has partially been responsible for the increase of deportations by stating it was voluntary and then refusing to allow local jurisdictions to opt out after local officials criticized it for deporting too many non-criminal undocumented immigrants? Totally justifiable though because maybe they were worried that a future Republican president would do the same thing or something.

 

I'm just here to say that taco bowl looks real fucking tasty.

 

Tell me how delaying the employer mandate "furthers the purpose of the law". The purpose of the employer mandate is to force companies to provide insurance to their workers. Delaying that literally goes against the purpose of the law.

And yes, they certainly have been pushing legal boundaries. This is not a false narrative.

I don't think your Bush comment had a point.

The political climate prevents Obama from doing things you want him to do without severe backlash. Oh, so you don't want the INS to stop deporting people....so at what level do Obama's deportations become acceptable? 75% of Bush levels? 50%? One less person? At what level does Obama go from "worse" to "better", if the answer isn't stopping deportations? Does the amount of protected peoples due to executive action not play into the math at all? Is seeing the next president reverse those orders but lowering the amount of people deported a better outcome or worse?

As stated above, yes, delaying the employer mandate literally subverts the ACA's purpose. Purpose of statute: force companies to provide insurance to their employers by January 1st, 2014. President's action: Stop that from actually being enforced. Yes, they really did.

I'm not "resorting" to anything, I'm just wondering how you're defining "worse". I also don't think Hillary over Trump is simply a matter of utility...there are very real simple and complicated policy differences that would have enourmous consequences of people between the two candidates. Anyways, Obama's deportation numbers are inflated thanks to
terminology and I think you knew that already. Yes, he's stopping more people at the borders than his predecessors and sending them back quickly without going through the court processs. But deporting people already here and settled? Less than his predecessors. Considering the talking points of the right on why they won't pass immigration reform (we need to protect our borders first!), the numbers on that front help to weaken that argument (not that I think it matters, as I think the GOP is being dishonest as usual, and it certainly won't pass as long as Obama is in office)

Yep, that's what I said! The idea of deportation in and of itself is not "treating them as if they're not human beings". Celebrating deportation as if it's a great thing to do, and doing so without acknowledging the very real broken parts of our legal immigration system, on the other hand...Hmm, wonder who's been doing that in this election cycle?

For all the talk we have around here about how much rhetoric and words matter, I sure do get a kick out of you pretending like there's literally no difference in the approaches Obama takes to immigrants compared to the GOP because of inflated and convoluted numbers. "Policy" includes less deportation cases brought against people who are already here, and EA's to protect groups from deportation all together, while strengthening border patrol and sending people back through a process that allows those same people to come back without facing a 5-20 year ban on possible legal immigration. So yes, Obama has been infinitely better on "policy" than Trump, and yes, even Bush, who mainly liked to talk up that stronger border patrol stuff without any of the protections in place for subgroups.

Oh dear god, it's not a defense. It's pointing out that immigration policy being "better" or "worse" goes beyond "more people were deported!" (which, again as pointed out in those links, isn't actually the case, %-wise). You said you wanted something based on the known standard of the past. Well, there it is. Some of the most vulnerable protected from being deported when they previously were not protected from such actions.


Edit-Oops....somehow made the entire half of the post a hyperlink lol. Tried fixing it but no luck

 

Trump really channeling his inner Michael Scott with that one.

 

Christ

 

"I love the Hispanics, I get along great with the Hispanics, Hispanics love me. We're going to win the Hispanics so much, you're gonna get bored with winning the Hispanics!.....Hispanics!"


Paul Ryan refused to endorse Trump earlier on CNN. Or, at least said he can't do it "right now".

 

Reading David's posts makes me further realize how people of color are sacrificed on the altar of electoral politics and then told,"Hey, it could have been worse."

It's pretty disgusting actually. Between Trump and liberals, we don't stand a fucking chance.

 

Abstaining from the political process all together will certainly help out people of color.

I despise, and find disgusting, all or nothing politics. "Nothing" is not an acceptable option to me when you can provide tangible help for some. Having that ability, and refusing, on the basis that "something" is not "all" and therefore isn't worth it...well, that's your prerogative.

I'll go back to my original post when I said we've had this discussion a thousand times before and no one's mind is changing.

 

For one, the purpose isn't about specific provisions, but the entire law. The part of the law's overall purpose balances compliance and efficiency, if delaying and giving leniency ensures greater compliance and less costs on the government, then that does not undermine the purpose of the law. And even if this wasn't subject to Chevron deference, it would still likely be well within the IRS's prosecutorial discretion.

It is, executive deference has actually been restricted since the 80s.

I do want the INS to stop deporting people, or at least resort to the minimal level of enforcement, but what I want isn't what we're discussing.

One less person would technically be "better," but we're not in the universe where we get to say "hey Obama is deporting less people than Bush, so he's at least been better, but is it good enough?" we're in the universe where Obama is deporting more people. I don't need to put a number on it because Obama's numbers are unacceptable under any reasonable standard.

It does, it doesn't outweigh the increase of deportations however.

Again, judge the president by his actions, not when compared to the hypothetical actions of his opponents that haven't been undertaken yet.

As I mentioned above, no. And this was not a broadening of presidential power.

This isn't true, removals have gone up during Obama's presidency, returns have gone down.

The story of the Obama administration on immigration enforcement is that more people than ever are being expelled from the country in a way that prevents them from returning to the US legally or illegally — even though net unauthorized migration has been low and the unauthorized population of the country is down from its 2006 peak...

The government simply can't return more people than are trying to come in to begin with — so returns are partly dependent on the state of the economy. Removals, on the other hand, tell the story of the deliberate policy choices made over the last decade that are having lasting consequences for the people being expelled.

The DHS also distinguishes between removals and returns and you can see the numbers for yourself here. From 2009-2012 there were more removals in each year than Bush's highest number of removals in 2008.

You continually using Trump as the standard for which a Democrat must surpass to be considered doing a good job is ridiculous.

The numbers aren't inflated when compared to Bush, Bush also used removals and returns together and Obama is using removals, a harsher process, more than his predecessor.

Policy also includes forcing local governments to participate in programs designed to deport more undocumented workers like Secure Communities and increasing the use of removals.

When in doubt, resort to "Trump."

But again, Bush used more returns than removals, Obama has done the opposite.

Again, Obama has increased removals from the already high numbers that were present in the Bush years.

 

My friend who is a Bernie supporter said if it comes down to Hillary or Trump he would support Trump. To me, if you are a real Bernie supporter for the general election you will either support Hillary, third party, or not vote. Supporting Trump just shouldn't even be an option.

 

I agree, that's pathetic. I'm not sure how someone who supports Bernie for any reason could vote for Trump. Unbelievable.

 

Gary Johnson has been attracting a lot of Bernie supporters

 

like I said yesterday, aren't their economic policies polar opposites? I really don't see how someone can go from someone who included Single payer healthcare and free college as pillars of their platform to the libertarian candidate.

 

It perplexes me too. I really can only see that if the voter is incredibly misinformed.

 

more so on social issues

 

I agree. The only thing that you can say they really are similar on is foreign policy, their opposition to the war on drugs, and being pro choice. Other than that is there really anything else? Someone correct me if I am wrong but that is what I understand.

 

I mean, I still think you're better off going with Hillary then