• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Judge halts Obama's Executive Order on Immigration

It is legally ambiguous territory. The Prez has a lot of leeway, but the judge here seems to be sifting through the administration's BS and looking as much at its stated intent to change the law without Congress. The admin did not help itself my attempting to amend DACA with DAPA. I suspect this will break in the courts along party lines.
 
I think the President wins this argument. The disposition of resources to enforce the law, or to not, is a function of the executive branch. ELC, if you want to hear bullshit on this, listen to any Republican.
 
Residency and citizenship are governed by statute, which is part of the reason his executive action stopped short of granting those. That would have been beyond his power, clearly. Everything Obama did this time sounds totally within his executive authority, and does not contradict existing law.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Residency and citizenship are governed by statute, which is part of the reason his executive action stopped short of granting those. That would have been beyond his power, clearly. Everything Obama did this time sounds totally within his executive authority, and does not contradict existing law.
Click to expand...

Isn't there some precedent with previous executive actions?
 
R's in Senate need to grow a pair and overcome this filibuster.
 
Go said:
R's in Senate need to grow a pair and overcome this filibuster.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "grow a pair?"
 
Deadbolt said:
Isn't there some precedent with previous executive actions?
Click to expand...

Not in the way that Democrats portray it. There is some leeway, as I mentioned. This is an entirely different level of leeway.

SCOTUS has ruled that the Feds have preemptive authority here, so I'm not sure what about it (if anything) this decision has addressed. It may still recognize exclusive federal authority, but I believe the complaint was brought by numerous states. It seems to be addressing it on executive overstep grounds. Haven't read the decision yet.
 
From reading blurbs, it would appear that the decision deemed previous executive actions irrelevant.
 
Bush nominee. In Texas.

And "halts" is misleading. It's an injunction, which means it is temporarily stopped until some other process (usually conclusion of legal proceedings) occurs. In this case, it was made on administrative grounds, based on the lack of a public comment period, which usually occurs when executive agencies create regulations. I don't practice admin law, so I can't tell you why that was or wasn't necessary here.
 
As my republican friends used to complain when the Repubs were in total control " those damn activist judges". Shoe on other foot now.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
As my republican friends used to complain when the Repubs were in total control " those damn activist judges". Shoe on other foot now.
Click to expand...

lol. Right. Because the administration's entire immigration policy hasn't been completely activist.

Reading the order, a few things stand out at first. He isn't making a judgment on any EO because there wasn't one. That is said pretty early on.

He is drawing an interesting distinction on page 87 between the inaction of prosecutorial discretion and the affirmative actions (not to be confused with affirmative action as we commonly discuss it with regard to race) taken with the administration's granting of benefits. In other words, it is one thing to say we aren't going to deport you, but it's another to say we are going to grant you a legal status with all the benefits that entails.

Not that I read a lot of injunctions, but this one strikes me as very thorough. It is longer than most SCOTUS decisions and covers a lot of bases. It is dismissive of some plaintiff arguments and receptive to others. For a simple injunction, it seems written for the high court's consideration.
 
meandmyuncleDeac said:
I think the President wins this argument. The disposition of resources to enforce the law, or to not, is a function of the executive branch. ELC, if you want to hear bullshit on this, listen to any Republican.
Click to expand...

So, we have a poster who supports the president unilaterally changing a law. To oppose it, in the poster's words, is BS. This is the primary difference between progressives and libertarians.

http://twitchy.com/2015/02/17/forme...rd-immigration-injunction-the-law-is-the-law/

Page 107 of the judge’s ruling notes that, “in formally introducing DAPA to the nation for the first time, President Obama stated, ‘I just took an action to change the law.'” These are the words of an alleged constitutional law professor?
 
RaleighDevil said:
So, we have a poster who supports the president unilaterally changing a law. To oppose it, in the poster's words, is BS. This is the primary difference between progressives and libertarians.

http://twitchy.com/2015/02/17/forme...rd-immigration-injunction-the-law-is-the-law/

Page 107 of the judge’s ruling notes that, “in formally introducing DAPA to the nation for the first time, President Obama stated, ‘I just took an action to change the law.'” These are the words of an alleged constitutional law professor?
Click to expand...

No, actually. Those are the words of a politician playing the long game. He wants to paint himself as leaning forward on immigration and his opposition as pushing back. He could care less whether this was legal (and admitted it wasn't for the first five years of his administration). It's a smart play politically.

As to this appeal, POTUS's bravado didn't do Holder's troops any favors.
 
RaleighDevil said:
So, we have a poster who supports the president unilaterally changing a law. To oppose it, in the poster's words, is BS. This is the primary difference between progressives and libertarians.

http://twitchy.com/2015/02/17/forme...rd-immigration-injunction-the-law-is-the-law/

Page 107 of the judge’s ruling notes that, “in formally introducing DAPA to the nation for the first time, President Obama stated, ‘I just took an action to change the law.'” These are the words of an alleged constitutional law professor?
Click to expand...

The rhetoric is irrelevant.

What the President did is essentially a prioritization, and he's on pretty strong ground do do it. It's on par with a DA, as an executive, deciding to prioritize homicide cases over misdemeanors.

At the same time, we are in desperate need of meaningful immigration reform. The executive order is fine as a temporary bandaid, but these issues need to be taken up on a more permanent basis by Congress or there will be no continuity in policy.
 
We already know that what someone says about the order or law (tax v. penalty from the original HC decision) doesn't really make a difference.
 
Who would have thought Admin law would win the day?
 
Yeah seriously. Its coincidental that this popped up when it did on here. Just came from a TA meeting with a 2L going over an outline for the admin final she has next week
 
wfumike02 said:
The rhetoric is irrelevant.

What the President did is essentially a prioritization, and he's on pretty strong ground do do it. It's on par with a DA, as an executive, deciding to prioritize homicide cases over misdemeanors.

At the same time, we are in desperate need of meaningful immigration reform. The executive order is fine as a temporary bandaid, but these issues need to be taken up on a more permanent basis by Congress or there will be no continuity in policy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why everybody seems to think "we are in desperate need of immigration reform." Our legal immigration process works pretty well and is perfectly adequate in attracting the kind of people we want here. The illegal element of it is fucked up, and that's an enforcement issue, which isn't anything close to a priority for this administration. The solution is quite clearly not to legalize them in bulk. That was the lesson of the Reagan Amnesty. And then there was the Clinton Amnesty, that went on for about 6-7 years, which apparently wasn't long enough because immediately after that and since then, there have been talks of another amnesty. Amnesty is the problem, and mere discussion of it perpetuates the problem. No amnesty, a.k.a. no "immigration reform", is part of the solution. Build the fence, funnel the illegal traffic, and let ICE and BP do the jobs they were hired to do. There will never be any way to get a completely 100% successful enforcement policy in place, but the solution is not to relax enforcement. Even little kids understand that.

This President's tone deafness in this matter is a good reason why I prefer somebody with gubernatorial experience rather than some Washington weenie who only sees votes. Immigration is an issue that hits the states particularly hard, and governors understand that.
 
What do you mean "tone deafness?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top