Trabajo te hara libre is the closest i can make it.
the executive order has been cited already. Read it. It’s not overly long. It applies only to those here illegally.
There is no generally limiting principle, because Obama is not acting pursuant to one particular kind of authority. Some of the actions are taken by agencies given that authority expressly by Congress, others by agencies given that authority implicitly or where Congress was silent, others are by the President pursuant to his immigration powers, and others are by the President pursuant to his law enforcement discretion. Each of those powers has its own rules and limiting principles–though some are more well-established than others, some are legal and some are customary.
Dumbing it down is part of the problem. This is an important issue, so people want to talk about it. But it’s also a complicated issue, so most of the discussion happens in ignorance.
Where?
If you’re here legally, why would you need a permit?
Only criminals get pardons; how unfair the system is that an innocent person can’t get a pardon!
According to the White House web site, there doesn’t seem to be a record of Obama recently issuing an Executive Order pertaining to illegal alien citizenship.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders
There are two recent Presidential Memorandums.
Presidential Memorandum – Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century and Presidential Memorandum – Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees.
The media seems to be quite happy repeating that Obama issued an EO concerning this issue.
Lots of people are here legally, but either don’t have employment authorization or have employment authorization that is specific to a particular petitioning employer and position. Students, dependents of people with valid work visas, people with their own employer-specific work visas…
All the memos are right here. Note how only one of them is getting much discussion in the press. There are changes to the employment visa system, too.
I don’t like Obama. I don’t like his or the democrats’ general view on immigration. But even I’m willing to admit that it probably isn’t illegal. I’m not super-knowledgable, but I know that presidents sometimes have to do these executive action type things. And I know that one huge issue with having an executive branch is that it is within their discretion NOT to enforce a law. It is very difficult to sue them for not enforcing a law. There are issues with having legal standing, at the very least. Indeed it’s peculiar in that various branches of the government don’t technically have to DO ANYTHING in any real sense, they’re just entrusted with the power to do so. Only a complete an utter shirking of duties and incompetence can be directly prosecuted. Anything less seems to fall under “discretion”
Though some of the above comments from more knowledgeable people leads me to believe there is something unique in this most recent action. Any of you guys care to post a summary of what exactly went on in this situation?
Here’s a nifty summary, with links, from a colleague of my boss’ who is much more knowledgeable than anyone on this board.
Well, it’s not just the media. Texas governor-to-be Greg Abbott has issued a press release about a lawsuit he will file once he takes office to block “Obama’s executive order on illegal immigration.” Most media outlets seem to have been careful to refer to it as “executive action” rather than an executive order, though.
Yeah and he just ordered 87 million for the job, taken from other state agencies …
Really? You got it from your boss, who got it from a colleague, who had read it in the Huffington Post. What is this colleague more knowledgeable about? Is he/she saying that the State of Texas can not sue over Obama’s Presidential Memorandum?
The article does say that Cruz is an experienced litigator who has argued before the Supreme Court on nine occasions. Not exactly your average litigator.
I took it to mean her “boss, who got it from a colleague, who wrote it in the Huffington Post”.
You’re not helping her cause.
Cause? I was just trying to explain how I read what she wrote. I may have misunderstood her, as might you have.
I understand you are trying to help but that can lead to more confusion. Dan Kowalski wrote the HuPo article and that article is simply an opinion that Cruz and Abbott shouldn’t object to Obama’s Presidential Memorandums. Why? Because 130 law professors don’t think they should. Hardly a legal argument or proof of knowledge about this subject.
It’s reported that other Presidents have taken similar executive actions but those actions were never challenged in the courts. It looks like Obama’s Presidential Memorandums will be challenged in the courts and I can hardly wait to find out if Obama’s actions are an abuse of Presidential power.
It shouldn’t – the only confusion seemed to be over the connection of the writer of the article to the poster who cited it. Hopefully she will return and confirm.
You can read the legal arguments in the letter itself, which is linked in Kowalski’s article. They’re pretty open-and-shut. The argument to the contrary makes some sense in a vacuum, but to anyone familiar with the principle of prosecutorial discretion it makes none at all.
Then Obama’s recent executive actions should be able to withstand a court challenge. The “open-and-shut” legal arguments can be presented as friend of court briefs.