"The real problem is when presidents issue EOs that have dubious legal standing."

Like the Muslim ban? Per Steve Miller, the President's authority should not be questioned!

Trump did the right thing.

Obama over-reached and possibly acted illegally. Just because Congress does not act does not mean that the president can act on his own and Obama knew this because he said on multiple occasions that he did not have the authority to act without congressional action when it comes to illegals.

It is for Congress to act in the next six months and thereafter unless Trump or any other president can find a LEGAL remedy to deal with "dreamers" their status would be in limbo and potentially they would be subject to deportation as are the other 11 million illegals.

FWIW, I support congressional action to give the dreamers legal status but I don't support any president unilaterally doing so.

What would have happened if the courts had ruled DACA to be unconstitutional? The dreamers would be in the same position that they were before Obama's DACA order.

The real problem is when presidents issue EOs that have dubious legal standing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obama first waited for Congress to pass immigration reform my. When that didn't happen, he signed DACA, which is not immigration reform, it's just giving guidelines to DHS and DOJ, which is within his power. It's also within Trump's power. Sessions was either lying or just didn't have all the facts.

Congressional immigration reform would be better. DACA didn't give the Dreamers all that much. They don't have any certainty. They should get a finite unextendable work permit, or a green card, or something. Not this nebulous"we probably won't deport you this year" that they currently have.

When the Dream Act did not pass, Obama should have accepted that as part of the democratic process. A majority of congress did not support the Act.

But rather than accept the will of the people, Obama pulled an end-run around democracy and implemented as much of the failed Dream Act as he could get away with. Why do you think DACA recipients are called Dreamers?

If by pulling an end-run, you mean using his legal authority to decide enforcement priorities, that is just what he did. That has been ruled legal by every court that has decided it. And the overwhelming majority of Americans and even a majority of Republicans support that decision. You really need to get out of your bubble sometime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obama first waited for Congress to pass immigration reform my. When that didn't happen, he signed DACA, which is not immigration reform, it's just giving guidelines to DHS and DOJ, which is within his power. It's also within Trump's power. Sessions was either lying or just didn't have all the facts.

Congressional immigration reform would be better. DACA didn't give the Dreamers all that much. They don't have any certainty. They should get a finite unextendable work permit, or a green card, or something. Not this nebulous"we probably won't deport you this year" that they currently have.

When the Dream Act did not pass, Obama should have accepted that as part of the democratic process. A majority of congress did not support the Act.

But rather than accept the will of the people, Obama pulled an end-run around democracy and implemented as much of the failed Dream Act as he could get away with. Why do you think DACA recipients are called Dreamers?

Just because Congress is dysfunctional, doesn't mean that the government should stop working. If they're not going to do what they're supposed to, then someone else will.

The Senate passed immigration reform. The House has been pretty useless for the past few years, even moreso than usual.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obama first waited for Congress to pass immigration reform my. When that didn't happen, he signed DACA, which is not immigration reform, it's just giving guidelines to DHS and DOJ, which is within his power. It's also within Trump's power. Sessions was either lying or just didn't have all the facts.

Congressional immigration reform would be better. DACA didn't give the Dreamers all that much. They don't have any certainty. They should get a finite unextendable work permit, or a green card, or something. Not this nebulous"we probably won't deport you this year" that they currently have.

When the Dream Act did not pass, Obama should have accepted that as part of the democratic process. A majority of congress did not support the Act.

But rather than accept the will of the people, Obama pulled an end-run around democracy and implemented as much of the failed Dream Act as he could get away with. Why do you think DACA recipients are called Dreamers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

Whatever legal nonsense Sessions said, what on earth do you think Trump meant by revisiting, if not another EO?

I don’t pretend to know all the possibilities. But, what is clear to me is that “revisit” is not “fix.” Otherwise, he would have used the word, “fix.”
He didn’t. He chose the word “revisit” for a reason.

Because Trump is so careful with his language. What? The guy can't even use Spellcheck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

Whatever legal nonsense Sessions said, what on earth do you think Trump meant by revisiting, if not another EO?

I don’t pretend to know all the possibilities. But, what is clear to me is that “revisit” is not “fix.” Otherwise, he would have used the word, “fix.”
He didn’t. He chose the word “revisit” for a reason.

So if he won't fix it, I guess you believe the "revisit" will go something like this
"Hi DACA EO! How are you? It's been six months since we've last visited. How's it been? Seen any good movies lately?"

One poster on here seems to be fixated on "fix." Trump only has three choices when "revisiting" the issue. 1) Maintain the Obama order, which Sesssions says is unconstitutional or 2)ask for another delay, which is maintaining the Obama order which would also be unconstitutional or 3) Rescind the Obama order and let the deportations begin, which is political suicide. Good luck! Hair Führer has got himself in a pickle.

DACA has 2 parts.

1) Prosecutorial discretion i.e. don't arrest and deport, which the courts found OK during the DAPA trial.

2) Creation of a new "Legal" status with work papers, which the courts found illegal in the DAPA trial.

The executive branch has the ability to not arrest and deport, but can not create what is effectively a new class of visa.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

Whatever legal nonsense Sessions said, what on earth do you think Trump meant by revisiting, if not another EO?

I don’t pretend to know all the possibilities. But, what is clear to me is that “revisit” is not “fix.” Otherwise, he would have used the word, “fix.”
He didn’t. He chose the word “revisit” for a reason.

There are no possibilities. An EO is it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

Whatever legal nonsense Sessions said, what on earth do you think Trump meant by revisiting, if not another EO?

I don’t pretend to know all the possibilities. But, what is clear to me is that “revisit” is not “fix.” Otherwise, he would have used the word, “fix.”
He didn’t. He chose the word “revisit” for a reason.

It is totally possible that, if Congress has done nothing, in 6 months, Trump will again say that Dreamers will be deported immediately without recourse. Protesting that he doesn't want this, all the while. That's how he leads the country, after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

Whatever legal nonsense Sessions said, what on earth do you think Trump meant by revisiting, if not another EO?

I don’t pretend to know all the possibilities. But, what is clear to me is that “revisit” is not “fix.” Otherwise, he would have used the word, “fix.”
He didn’t. He chose the word “revisit” for a reason.

Anonymous wrote:
So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

Whatever legal nonsense Sessions said, what on earth do you think Trump meant by revisiting, if not another EO?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for his claim that action with Congress is unconstitutional. These fools can't keep their story straight for five hours!

What are you blabbering about?

Trump just said that he would fix DACA if Congress didn't. The only tool he has is an executive order. But according to Republicans this is unconstitutional WHEN A DEMOCRATS DOES IT. IF TRUMP DOES IT, IT'S ALL GOOD.

FIFY

FFS. Read what the original poster on this thread wrote...."So much for his claim that action with Congress is unconstitutional”

Action with Congress? Unconstitutional?

And, he didn’t say he would fix it. He said he would revisit it. You have no clue what that entails.

Y’all are getting your panties in a bunch for no reason.

Obviously the Congress part was a mistake.

Trump has no tool to use if an EO for this isn't constitutional. So his revisiting is either useless or he is planning on doing something his AG has declared unconstitutional. So which is it? Empty promises or acting in an unconstitutional way?

So, you are saying that what the first poster on this thread wrote doesn’t make sense. I agree.
By “revisiting,” he is not saying he will take an unconstitutional EO. Sessions made it clear that is not possible.

So what is revisiting? Please include all possibilities.

Yes, Obama first waited for Congress to pass immigration reform my. When that didn't happen, he signed DACA, which is not immigration reform, it's just giving guidelines to DHS and DOJ, which is within his power. It's also within Trump's power. Sessions was either lying or just didn't have all the facts.

Congressional immigration reform would be better. DACA didn't give the Dreamers all that much. They don't have any certainty. They should get a finite unextendable work permit, or a green card, or something. Not this nebulous"we probably won't deport you this year" that they currently have.