Because not every single person in the group has a legal situation that is exactly the same? Anyhow, the claim was made that his two statements contradict one another; this is the claim I am addressing.
Where’s the contradiction between ‘most of these 11 million people cannot be addressed by executive action’ and ‘5 million of these 11 million people can be addressed by executive action’? Why do you think he used the word ‘most’ in the first place if not because he believed that some of them could be addressed by executive action?
The second part referred to the full cohort of 11 million that was the subject of his remarks that day, which he was not able to and did not comprehensively affect with executive action. Note that Obama is still asking for the necessary legislative action to take care of the rest of that group.
Why don’t you address the statement Obama made in article that the poster actually quoted instead of something else in the article that the poster did NOT quote? See my earlier post where I quoted the context for what Smitty quoted.
Okay, that article contains only three quotes from Obama:
“not an option.”
“would be ignoring the law in a way that would be very difficult to defend legally.”
“He shouldn’t be afraid of majority opinion on this thing,” Obama said. “If in fact the overwhelming majority of the American people think we need to do something on immigration — we’ve got a bipartisan bill — why not go ahead and let it come to the floor of the House and let’s see what happens?”
I don’t see what your point is on focusing only on the actual quotes from Obama, as the first two tiny snippets have so little context as to be pretty useless, but please enlighten us as to what contradiction you find strictly within the quoted text.
Smitty quoted precisely one thing Obama said, and I quoted the full context just a few post back. What is it that you don’t understand about 5M being larger than “hundreds of thousands”? Are you going to argue that Obama meant “hundreds of thousands of thousands”?
No you didn’t, you quoted some newspaper columnist’s claim about what he said and then a tiny snippet of a quote “would be ignoring the law in a way that would be very difficult to defend legally.” which I had already addressed the first time you quoted it. You then insisted on only referring the material within that piece that was “actually quoted”, which seemed like a good idea to me, but now you seem to want to walk that back and instead talk about the non-quoted part that was written by a journalist.
I argued that Obama was referring to deferrals for all 11 million when he said that doing so “would be ignoring the law in a way that would be very difficult to defend legally.”, which was the topic that he was actually discussing during the interview back in 2013. You still haven’t addressed that.
What I am struggling with is what is the general limiting principle that has been applied here, and that would apply in the future. Can anyone clarify? Surely the executive discretion is not without limits (even Obama’s legal opinion draws lines).
Can anyone dumb it down and describe it generically? Can the president execute any element of the law in any way he’d prefer, so long as he uses all the resources assigned to the task–i.e., he can’t ignore an aspect of the law if he has the $$$ and resources to implement it? Must he be able to point to a legislative intent consistent with his interpretation? What are the guiding principles that make this legal, and beyond which it is not, that would be the guidance for future actions?
For instance, why is the Federal Government not arresting all of the marijuana growers in Colorado? Why are the Republicans not condemning Obama for not arresting all those marijuana growers? Why is the Federal Government respecting states’ rights in this case, when the Constitution makes it very clear that Federal Law supersedes State Law?
Some issues “get traction” and others don’t. The Republicans tried like hell to make Benghazi into a major scandal…and failed. Now they’re trying it with this. Will they succeed? Much depends on the ability of the typical American citizen to give a damn.
We should have a thread dedicated to all the things this President has said which he’s flip-flopped on. He could give Kerry and Romney a run for their money I bet.
Let’s not overlook the possibilities here, the chance for vigorous and creative entrepreneurship. Certainly, the optics of deporting a whole lot of parents of American citizens is daunting, but surely there is a way for private enterprise to create value, to monetize the resources of vast numbers of parentless children.
Recent experiments in privately owned juvenile detention centers might well provide a viable business model! Little hands need to be kept busy, this is common sense, and the advantages in early preparation for the labor market are clear. Surely we don’t want to raise a generation of moochers dependent upon the “nanny state”! We already have long-standing traditions of employment in agriculture for such people, though it is hindered by poor messaging. “Stoop labor” becomes “earth oriented”, for instance. “Child labor” becomes “pre-adult work training”, “juvenile detention” to “youth opportunity centers”. A good motto for such facilities would be helpful.
I’m surprised no one has an opinion on the fact that if you’re here legally and don’t currently have an open market work permit, you aren’t getting one. You have to be here illegally to benefit from the executive order.
Actually, Republican congress critters have been told to keep the rhetoric dialed back for fear of alienating voters for the 2016 election. Obama has made a smart move here in throwing down a gauntlet, IMO. He’s telling them they can sit on their asses, try to come after him, or pass meaningful legislation. They’re angry because he’s put them on the defensive in a year when they feel they should be telling HIM what to do. The radical faction of the Reps wants to impeach him, of course, but that ain’t happening and won’t do anything for the Hispanic vote. Sitting on their asses as usual will also do nothing but piss off ALL voters. I’m not sure passing meaningful legislation is within their ability at this point, but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.