The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[Expat]

Would we have it any other way?

To me it is an interesting phenomenon. They support the growth in power of one person. They hate the rule of law. They support a huge increase in the welfare state. Just the cost of 5 million people times the $10,000 earned income tax credit plus food stamps they can get is going to be billions of dollars added to the deficit. And who believes it is only 5 million? According to the Mexican govern,net, they estimate 30-35 million Mexicans in the US. How many more from the other countries?

 

[cobber]

To me it is an interesting phenomenon. They support the growth in power of one person. They hate the rule of law. They support a huge increase in the welfare state. Just the cost of 5 million people times the $10,000 earned income tax credit plus food stamps they can get is going to be billions of dollars added to the deficit. And who believes it is only 5 million? According to the Mexican govern,net, they estimate 30-35 million Mexicans in the US. How many more from the other countries?

I'm sure the INGOtarians will feel very gratified when the economy finally breaks and they get to learn Mandarin. Then they can tell the rest of us 'I told you so', and accept no responsibility for their own contribution to the mess.

 

[JTScribe]

Wow, even SNL gets it . . .

SNL?s Obama Shoves The Schoolhouse Rock Bill Down The Capitol Steps | Mediaite

 

[cobber]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBVl63yTmkI

Apparently the president hadn't consulted the INGOtarian talking points, to realize there's no problemo in issuing his Diktat. He could have saved a lot of hot air. Maybe he could have pushed harder for "reform" in 2009?

 

[Expat]

I guess given the INGO cabals self professed desire for anarchy, they would be supportive of Obama's drive toward the Cloward-Piven collapse. I don't think they will like what comes next though.

 

[steveh_131]

To me it is an interesting phenomenon. They support the growth in power of one person. They hate the rule of law. They support a huge increase in the welfare state. Just the cost of 5 million people times the $10,000 earned income tax credit plus food stamps they can get is going to be billions of dollars added to the deficit. And who believes it is only 5 million? According to the Mexican govern,net, they estimate 30-35 million Mexicans in the US. How many more from the other countries?

Have you even read this thread? It's not about immigration, it is about one finer point of discussion.

Hell, the OP even said he isn't against border controls. Sounds like your post should be addressed to a single poster, not generalized toward every libertarian.

 

[steveh_131]

I guess given the INGO cabals self professed desire for anarchy, they would be supportive of Obama's drive toward the Cloward-Piven collapse. I don't think they will like what comes next though.

Good grief. I don't even know why I bother.

 

[BogWalker]

Then we mostly agree. The only disagreement you might find is what constitutes a "positive action", which is an interesting debate. But that particular disagreement hardly justifies calling people here tyrants.

Negative action, positive action. How are they any different in their implications? Action is action. One man dictating something not be done is the same power exercised when one man dictates something to be done.

I'm curious as to where the negative action/positive action concept has come from. I've never heard of it. Is it something you've thought of, or is it actually some sort of legal/political concept? A legitimate question on my part.

 

[steveh_131]

Negative action, positive action. How are they any different in their implications? Action is action. One man dictating something not be done is the same power exercised when one man dictates something to be done.

I'm curious as to where the negative action/positive action concept has come from. I've never heard of it. Is it something you've thought of, or is it actually some sort of legal/political concept? A legitimate question on my part.

A positive action by the government necessarily limits liberty.

Inaction by the government does not.

 

[BogWalker]

A positive action by the government necessarily limits liberty.

Inaction by the government does not.

An interesting idea. So would the order to ignore the necessity of search warrants be a positive action, as it limits liberty, or a negative action, as it involves less action by the government?

Excuse the hyperbolic example. I don't find the immigration EO to be anywhere near as heinous, but search warrants are a very clear-cut example for argument's sake.

 

[steveh_131]

An interesting idea. So would the order to ignore the necessity of search warrants be a positive action, as it limits liberty, or a negative action, as it involves less action by the government?

Excuse the hyperbolic example. I don't find the immigration EO to be anywhere near as heinous, but search warrants are a very clear-cut example for argument's sake.

That results in more government action, not inaction.

 

[chipbennett]

He gave people "status"? My goodness, what a despot amirite?

Yes, declaring people that have no legal right to be present in the country to have, by the stroke of the executive's pen, nascent legal status to be present in the country legally, is an act-by-fiat that constitutes despotism in a constitutional republic.

Without meaningful borders, and the right to define who and how may acquire legal status to be present in the country and/or obtain citizenship, national sovereignty is meaningless.

 

[chipbennett]

A positive action by the government necessarily limits liberty.

Inaction by the government does not.

Oh? How about the liberties of the taxpayers? How about the liberties of naturalized citizens, and those currently struggling through the naturalization process?

Taxpayers are footing the bill for illegal immigrants to avail themselves of public services and Entitlement programs. Taxpayers suffer the consequences when public services (such as several hospitals) are closed because they cannot afford the flood of illegal-immigrant freeloaders. Those trying to become naturalized legally are harmed by Obama's legalized line-cutters.

And that doesn't even get into the crime - much of it, violent - imported by illegals who are cartel and gang members (e.g. MS-13).

Call me jingoistic if you must, but I value the liberties of the law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants above the "liberties" of those who choose to break our laws by coming - and staying - here illegally.

 

[cobber]

That results in more government action, not inaction.

How so? The police don't bother to call the prosecutor and a judge, draft an affidavit, execute the warrant, and then the prosecutor no longer has to defend motions to suppress. No more exclusionary rule. No more appeals. Sounds like a lot less action to me...

President can simply issue an EO, that all searches with or without warrant are henceforth "reasonable" and therefore constitutional. Because Congress won't act to define "reasonable". Can't wait, got that pen and phone...

Call me jingoistic if you must, but I value the liberties of the law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants above the "liberties" of those who choose to break our laws by coming - and staying - here illegally.

Hardly jingoistic, although that card is being played liberally these days. This 'legality' business only concerns those who see some role for order and reasonable expectations of outcome in a functioning society.

 

[steveh_131]

Oh? How about the liberties of the taxpayers? How about the liberties of naturalized citizens, and those currently struggling through the naturalization process?

Taxpayers are footing the bill for illegal immigrants to avail themselves of public services and Entitlement programs. Taxpayers suffer the consequences when public services (such as several hospitals) are closed because they cannot afford the flood of illegal-immigrant freeloaders. Those trying to become naturalized legally are harmed by Obama's legalized line-cutters.

And that doesn't even get into the crime - much of it, violent - imported by illegals who are cartel and gang members (e.g. MS-13).

Call me jingoistic if you must, but I value the liberties of the law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants above the "liberties" of those who choose to break our laws by coming - and staying - here illegally.

All of the entitlement programs that you mentioned are contrary to liberty in every way and ought to be abolished.

How so? The police don't bother to call the prosecutor and a judge, draft an affidavit, execute the warrant, and then the prosecutor no longer has to defend motions to suppress. No more exclusionary rule. No more appeals. Sounds like a lot less action to me...

Don't confuse action with paperwork. The action taking place is the search. Removing the checks and balances that allow a search results in more searches, or more government action and less liberty. I would call that a consolidation of power and the move of a dictator. You and I would agree on that.

This thread is not really about immigration, guys. It is a much larger discussion about liberty and the checks and balances that protect it.

If Obama wanted to halt the execution of various federal entitlement programs, I'd support him in that. If he halted the execution of federal gun control, I would support him in that as well.

We may agree that Obama is in the wrong with most of his executive orders, but we should be careful about the reasons we use to vocally oppose it.

 

[rambone]

An interesting idea. So would the order to ignore the necessity of search warrants be a positive action, as it limits liberty, or a negative action, as it involves less action by the government?

Excuse the hyperbolic example. I don't find the immigration EO to be anywhere near as heinous, but search warrants are a very clear-cut example for argument's sake.

The example is one of government action ("positive action" as it is called here). The government is performing a search. So it is not analogous to simply doing nothing.

I don't think its hyperbole though. Warrantless searches happen every day, legally. People are subjected to police checkpoints, TSA underpants searches, and massive amounts of domestic spying. This stuff was made possible by the Legislative and Judicial Branches.

As I said earlier, tyranny can't happen until all the checks and balances fail simultaneously. So just because the Congress demands domestic spying, and the courts find it acceptable, should the Executive Branch be compelled to follow through?

I say no. Refusal to enforce is the last place to shield us from tyranny. A constitutionalist president would refuse to enforce the Patriot Act. A constitutionalist officer would refuse to spy on Americans or search their suitcases without a warrant.

 

[chipbennett]

All of the entitlement programs that you mentioned are contrary to liberty in every way and ought to be abolished.

Non sequitur FTW! (Although I agree with you on that point, it has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayers footing the bill for those programs, and illegal immigrants receiving from them.)

 

[chipbennett]

This is what Sarah Palin says



I want to see this Mexican Ocean. Maybe you can see Russia from there!

Sarah Palin: Send Immigrants ?Back Across Ocean? to Mexico - The Daily Currant

The Daily Currant is a satire site. Thanks or playing, though!

(P.S. you actually *can* see Russia from Alaska. But who am I to let geography get in the way of anti-Sarah Palin ad hominem?)

 

[steveh_131]

Non sequitur FTW! (Although I agree with you on that point, it has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayers footing the bill for those programs, and illegal immigrants receiving from them.)

My point is that the ability of illegals to take money from our welfare programs is not a problem with illegal immigrants, it's a problem with welfare programs.

As an analogy, if Obama pardoned a bunch of people, lots of them would probably sign up for an entitlement of some sort. That has no bearing on the issue of whether he should have pardoned them.

 

[chipbennett]

My point is that the ability of illegals to take money from our welfare programs is not a problem with illegal immigrants, it's a problem with welfare programs.

How is it not a problem with illegal immigrants? They can and do receive services from Entitlement programs, without paying into those programs, thereby depriving those services to citizens, and raise the costs of those programs for all the taxpayers who fund them.

Whether you agree with the underlying programs or not, they exist. It is absurd to say that it's acceptable for illegal immigrants to receive services from Entitlement programs, because *nobody* should be receiving those services. That's Choom Gang-level of twisted logic, right there.