Can the President Eliminate Capital Gains Taxes On His Own?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

But then someone pointed out that one law’s text actually mentions discretionary enforcement and the other’s does not. To me, that’s a much more solid base upon which to rest a distinction.

Just for the record, that was also pointed out on the first page of the immigration policy reform thread:

[QUOTE=Me]
Obama isn’t “ignoring existing constitutional law” or “voiding law by executive order.” He’s exercising the discretion granted to the executive under federal immigration law
[/QUOTE]

[Saint_Cad]

Honest question:
Does the law give the President discretion in handing out work visas or is there a law/procedure he is obliged to follow?

[Terr]

@Bricker

But then someone pointed out that one law’s text actually mentions discretionary enforcement and the other’s does not. To me, that’s a much more solid base upon which to rest a distinction.

I looked for that language in immigration law and couldn’t find it. Now, IANAL, so maybe I missed something obvious. Maybe someone can cite the language in the law that gives the executive branch discretion over whom to deport?

[mister_nyx]

So, if every president since Reagan at least has also laid out policies on how immigration enforcement should work, why do I not remember all these principled constitutionalist objections from the right during, say, George W. Bush’s term?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Terr

I looked for that language in immigration law and couldn’t find it. Now, IANAL, so maybe I missed something obvious. Maybe someone can cite the language in the law that gives the executive branch discretion over whom to deport?

8 U.S.C. § 1229b, inter alia:

(a) Cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents
The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien–
(1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years,
(2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and
(3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.
(b) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents
(1) In general
The Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien–
(A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application;
(B) has been a person of good moral character during such period;
(C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and
(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

It’s a bit longer than that, but presumably that’s sufficient to answer your question.

[Mosier]

@mister_nyx

So, if every president since Reagan at least has also laid out policies on how immigration enforcement should work, why do I not remember all these principled constitutionalist objections from the right during, say, George W. Bush’s term?

For the most part, the right is scrambling to claim Obama’s immigration move as something they thought of first. Not many people are actually objecting to it.

[Terr]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

8 U.S.C. § 1229b, inter alia:

It’s a bit longer than that, but presumably that’s sufficient to answer your question.

That sections sets very specific criteria for who may not be deported if the AG decides to do so. Which subsection in that rule applies broadly to the class of illegal aliens that Obama decided should not be deported?

[mister_nyx]

@Mosier

For the most part, the right is scrambling to claim Obama’s immigration move as something they thought of first. Not many people are actually objecting to it.

Well, plenty of folks here seem to be.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Terr

That sections sets very specific criteria for who may not be deported if the AG decides to do so. Which subsection in that rule applies broadly to the class of illegal aliens that Obama decided should not be deported?

None, hence “inter alia.”

[Terr]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

None, hence “inter alia.”

In this case I guess “inter alia” means “the section of the law I am citing for you doesn’t apply to the matter at hand, but I will cite it anyway”. Thanks.

So - maybe someone can cite the language in the law that gives the executive branch discretion over whom to deport that applies to the people Obama decided not to deport? After all, the claim was that there is “explicit” language that does that.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

That sections sets very specific criteria for who may not be deported if the AG decides to do so.

So does the Obama order; in fact, it is even more explicit than the law provides for. Obama could extend his order to a larger group of illegals under that law, but he chose not to.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

So does the Obama order; in fact, it is even more explicit than the law provides for. Obama could extend his order to a larger group of illegals under that law, but he chose not to.

Are the criteria in Obama’s order a subset of one of the sets of criteria in the section of the law that was cited? If so, can you demonstrate that?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Terr

In this case I guess “inter alia” means “the section of the law I am citing for you doesn’t apply to the matter at hand, but I will cite it anyway”. Thanks.

You didn’t ask for that. You asked for language in the law which indicates that the executive branch has discretion to enforce immigration law, and I gave it to you. I know you well enough now not to bother playing paperchase with you.

[Terr]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You didn’t ask for that. You asked for language in the law which indicates that the executive branch has discretion to enforce immigration law, and I gave it to you. I know you well enough now not to bother playing paperchase with you.

It was obvious that I asked for the section in the law that indicates that the executive branch can do what it did in this specific case.

[zamboniracer]

I think Bricker has a point. Consider the 2008 financial meltdown, which many argue was brought about because of lax enforcement of rules and regulations that were on the books already. Assume President Bush’s administration was deliberately lax about enforcement because it believed that the rules and regulations were an unnecessary drag on the economy.

Isn’t Bush’s decision not to enforce SEC & banking laws the same thing as Obama’s decision about not deporting certain illegal aliens? Isn’t it all within the Administration’s purview?

[Saint_Cad]

@zamboniracer

I think Bricker has a point. Consider the 2008 financial meltdown, which many argue was brought about because of lax enforcement of rules and regulations that were on the books already. Assume President Bush’s administration was deliberately lax about enforcement because it believed that the rules and regulations were an unnecessary drag on the economy.

Isn’t Bush’s decision not to enforce SEC & banking laws the same thing as Obama’s decision about not deporting certain illegal aliens? Isn’t it all within the Administration’s purview?

Remember that Bush wanted greater oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but needed congressional approval, which Barney Frank denied him. Given this, I’m curious what laws Bush did not enforce.
I’m also waiting to hear the answer to my question if the law allows the President to issue work visas to whomever he wants which is a step beyond not deporting an alien.

[mister_nyx]

@Saint_Cad

Remember that Bush wanted greater oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but needed congressional approval, which Barney Frank denied him. Given this, I’m curious what laws Bush did not enforce.

The real issue was the failure to regulate the exotic financial products that were actually motivating the housing bubble. These were products that largely barely existed at the beginning of Bush’s term but altogether were traded in the trillions (only paper value, of course) before the whole thing collapsed.

The Bush-era deregulation of the financial markets didn’t help, but what might actually have forestalled the problem would have been a system to regulate these novel types of financial products. I don’t know if any administration would have been forward-thinking enough to lead the charge on something like that, but probably at least some wouldn’t have done the opposite, the way Bush did.

[elucidator]

They couldn’t, they totally painted themselves in a corner. There were numerous signs of economic trouble for some time, and they had just put a humongous war debt on the credit card. How many times did you see these questions posed to Bushiviks and hear the answer “Hey, the housing market is doing great! Everybody is making buttloads of money! Home ownership through the roof!” It was all they had. They had no real choice but pretend the housing bubble wasn’t a bubble.

Except, of course, going to the big banks and financial institutions and saying “Hey, you know that stuff you’re doing making you all that money? Stop doing it.” Bush would have been excommunicated from the Republican Church.

[BigT]

@Terr

Link, please? I can see Attorney General has discretion in granting asylum, but cannot find the section that gives AG discretion whom to deport.

Despite the citations given, wouldn’t this be in fact the same thing? Discretion to grant asylum would give him the power to give it to those who were about to be deported.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@erislover

Well, then, it certainly seems like he could try.

I’m guessing this current immigration case isn’t the first (or even the tenth) time a President decided a particular law or parts thereof wasn’t to his liking and declined to enforce it the way Congress intended. I guess it’s up to Congress to do something about it, if they have the will, and to the people, come election day.