The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[steveh_131]

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.

I didn't say it was acceptable.

See the analogy I added to clarify.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see how your analogy is in any way analogous to illegal immigrants receiving Entitlement services and funds.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see how your analogy is in any way analogous to illegal immigrants receiving Entitlement services and funds.

Fair enough, let me expand on it.

Let's say Obama decides that marijuana users don't belong in prison and pardons them. Should they have been released from prison? Here are some possible answers:

1. Yes, non-violent offenders of silly laws do not belong in prison.
2. No, they broke the law and they should stay in prison.

Both of these are reasonable answers, even if I have a preference - they answer the question of whether it is right to keep human beings in a prison cell.

3. No, if we let them out then they will collect welfare.

This is not a reasonable answer. A cost/benefit analysis has no bearing on whether or not it is right to keep a person in a cage.

Now apply this same analysis to the current discussion and hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from.

 

[chipbennett]

Fair enough, let me expand on it.

Let's say Obama decides that marijuana users don't belong in prison and pardons them. Should they have been released from prison? Here are some possible answers:

1. Yes, non-violent offenders of silly laws do not belong in prison.
2. No, they broke the law and they should stay in prison.

Both of these are reasonable answers, even if I have a preference - they answer the question of whether it is right to keep human beings in a prison cell.

3. No, if we let them out then they will collect welfare.

This is not a reasonable answer. A cost/benefit analysis has no bearing on whether or not it is right to keep a person in a cage.

Now apply this same analysis to the current discussion and hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Nope; sorry. I still don't get it.

The original point was that a "negative action" by the President has no impact on liberty. I challenged that assertion, in part, by pointing out that illegal immigrants receive from the public dole, at the expense of the taxpayers.

Thus, they are *already* receiving benefits. "Negative" action will mean that they *continue* to receive benefits. At no time, in the "negative action" scenario, are illegal immigrants ever *entitled* to receive those benefits.

In your scenario, a citizen, legal immigrant, or other person here legally who is pardoned and released from prison will be entitled, or not, to receive public benefits based on lawfully prescribed eligibility requirements. It is in no way analogous to illegal immigrants taking from the public dole.

(And nevermind that you're comparing the consequences of a "negative" action - not enforcing immigration law - with the consequences of a "positive" action - a presidential pardon.)

 

[steveh_131]

Nope; sorry. I still don't get it.

True.

I don't think we're on the same page at all, but I've explained it as well as I can. Keeping a person in prison is government action. Releasing them is inaction. It's an important distinction. That government action should be debated on its merits alone, when it comes to an individuals liberty. The other government actions that will happen afterwards are a separate discussion.

Arguing that the government needs to do______ because otherwise another part of the government will do______ is a weird way to approach any policy decision.

 

[chipbennett]

True.

I don't think we're on the same page at all, but I've explained it as well as I can. Keeping a person in prison is government action. Releasing them is inaction.

Releasing someone from prison before a duly enacted sentence has been completed is *action*, not *inaction*.

It's an important distinction. That government action should be debated on its merits alone, when it comes to an individuals liberty. The other government actions that will happen afterwards are a separate discussion.

Arguing that the government needs to do______ because otherwise another part of the government will do______ is a weird way to approach any policy decision.

That's not at all what I'm arguing. I'm talking about taxpayers, not government agencies. I have no idea how you got from A to B.

 

[steveh_131]

Releasing someone from prison before a duly enacted sentence has been completed is *action*, not *inaction*.

We are using the word differently, Chip. I'm not talking about the 'action' of signing a pardon, or the 'action' of releasing someone. I'm talking about government activities that result in increased government control and decreased individual control. The entire context of this discussion is keeping the government in 'check', hence the expression 'checks and balances'. One government branch attempts to take action in a way that decreases liberty for an individual or group of individuals, and another branch can 'check' that action.

By this definition, holding someone in a prison cell is an 'action'. NOT holding them in a prison cell is 'inaction'.

Now, extending this to my analogy: A presidential pardon is 'inaction'. The president is deciding not to continue holding someone in prison. This decision may be right or wrong, and should be weighed on its own merits. It should not be weighed based upon how other government agencies will then act.

That's not at all what I'm arguing. I'm talking about taxpayers, not government agencies. I have no idea how you got from A to B.

It is exactly what you're saying. The real debate should be: "Should _________ be kept in prison? Does this line up with liberty? Is this constitutional?"

The debate should not be: "If we let _______ out of prison, will he or she receive food stamps?"

A person's receipt of tax-payer entitlements should have no bearing on whether or not that person belongs in prison. If it did, we could use the same argument to place people in prison. 'If we don't imprison _______ group of people, they will continue collecting entitlements.' And I don't think that anyone would argue that this is just, would they?

 

[chipbennett]

By this definition, holding someone in a prison cell is an 'action'. NOT holding them in a prison cell is 'inaction'.

I don't accept this premise. Holding someone in jail is upholding the laws. Letting someone out of jail is failing to uphold the laws - but is still *action* because it requires the explicit step of releasing someone from prison.

And incarceration of criminals is not a matter of upholding or infringing individual liberty, in the context of a nation of laws.

Now, extending this to my analogy: A presidential pardon is 'inaction'. The president is deciding not to continue holding someone in prison. This decision may be right or wrong, and should be weighed on its own merits. It should not be weighed based upon how other government agencies will then act.

A presidential pardon is an explicit *action*. It is not an *inaction*.

It is exactly what you're saying. The real debate should be: "Should _________ be kept in prison? Does this line up with liberty? Is this constitutional?"

You're changing the question.

The original assertion was that failing to act to execute immigration laws does not impact the liberties of non-illegal immigrants. I challenged that assertion, in part with the example that illegal immigrants avail themselves of public services that they don't pay for, and that are paid for by taxpayers, thereby denying taxpayers their rightful use of those services.

Your analogy fails on two points, besides not being an accurate analogy for my argument:

1. Failing to execute existing immigration law (such as deporting illegals) is in no way analogous to keeping a prisoner incarcerated.
2. The president has explicit constitutional authority to issue pardons.

The debate should not be: "If we let _______ out of prison, will he or she receive food stamps?"

Then, I suppose, it is a good thing that nobody but your Straw Man is making such an argument.

A person's receipt of tax-payer entitlements should have no bearing on whether or not that person belongs in prison. If it did, we could use the same argument to place people in prison. 'If we don't imprison _______ group of people, they will continue collecting entitlements.' And I don't think that anyone would argue that this is just, would they?

Sorry, but your analogy fails. Perhaps you should argue why illegal immigrants should receive Entitlements and public services, at the expense of the taxpayers?

 

[steveh_131]

A presidential pardon is an explicit *action*. It is not an *inaction*.

Listen, Chip. I'm telling you how I am defining the rather ambiguous term in the context of the argument that I am trying to make. I am allowed to declare that definition because it is my argument, and the definition of that word is very important to the argument. I the context of my argument, government action is one that expands government control and contracts individual control. By this definition, releasing an individual from prison is 'inaction'.

You're changing the question.

No, I'm not.

The original assertion was that failing to act to execute immigration laws does not impact the liberties of non-illegal immigrants. I challenged that assertion, in part with the example that illegal immigrants avail themselves of public services that they don't pay for, and that are paid for by taxpayers, thereby denying taxpayers their rightful use of those services.

Are you really upset with Obama because you feel like American welfare-queens are being deprived of their food stamps? Is that really your argument, Chip?

Ok, let's say that it is. My point remains: Decrying government inaction because it results in action on the part of another government branch is silly. If you have a problem with the action of supplying welfare to illegal immigrants, then your argument should be with the various welfare departments.

The issue of illegal immigration should remain separate and be debated on the merits of liberty and constitutionality alone. If deporting them lines up with liberty and the constitution, then deport away. If it doesn't, then don't deport - and expend your energies on getting rid of this ridiculous welfare system we've created.

Your analogy fails on two points, besides not being an accurate analogy for my argument:

1. Failing to execute existing immigration law (such as deporting illegals) is in no way analogous to keeping a prisoner incarcerated.

Sure it is. Deporting an illegal alien and imprisoning an individual are both government actions - and failing to do either puts a toll on the food-stamp queens whose honor you vehemently defend.

2. The president has explicit constitutional authority to issue pardons.

Have you given any thought to why the founders gave the president this authority? It's almost as if they wanted him to be able to check the other branches of government from acting. Interesting. I guess they wanted him to be a dictator, right?

Then, I suppose, it is a good thing that nobody but your Straw Man is making such an argument. Sorry, but your analogy fails. Perhaps you should argue why illegal immigrants should receive Entitlements and public services, at the expense of the taxpayers?

Did I say they should receive entitlements? You worked a straw-man into the very next line after accusing me of creating one!

 

[rambone]

I don't accept this premise. Holding someone in jail is upholding the laws. Letting someone out of jail is failing to uphold the laws - but is still *action* because it requires the explicit step of releasing someone from prison.

The analogy is fine.

Using government force requires consent from all branches of government. When one branch withdraws its consent, the government is unable to use force. Pardons and refusal to enforce laws are how the Executive Branch withdraws its consent.

 

[steveh_131]

The analogy is fine.

Using government force requires consent from all branches of government. When one branch withdraws its consent, the government is unable to use force. Pardons and refusal to enforce laws are how the Executive Branch withdraws its consent.

This would have been a more clear way to explain my argument. Force in place of action.

Let's go with that.

 

[Expat]

The analogy is fine.

Using government force requires consent from all branches of government. When one branch withdraws its consent, the government is unable to use force. Pardons and refusal to enforce laws are how the Executive Branch withdraws its consent.

So I could be doing something illegal, suddenly it would become "okay". Does everyone that was in prison for it, get out?
I am doing something that is "okay", a new POTUS comes in and now suddenly, I get arrested for it?
That seems problematic to me.

 

[chipbennett]

Did I say they should receive entitlements? You worked a straw-man into the very next line after accusing me of creating one!

Except, not. What you call a Straw Man has been my argument from the very beginning. That you keep trying to change my argument into something else does not cause my original argument to become a Straw Man.

In any case, it's clear that we're not on the same page - and probably aren't even in the same book. So, I'll bow out.

 

[rambone]

So I could be doing something illegal, suddenly it would become "okay". Does everyone that was in prison for it, get out?
I am doing something that is "okay", a new POTUS comes in and now suddenly, I get arrested for it?
That seems problematic to me.

If the executive is logical and just he would free people under his charge, in the cases where he refuses to imprison new lawbreakers.

Meanwhile the people should hopefully work vigorously to end the law itself, if it is truly an unjust/undesirable law. The executive's position can only be viewed as temporary, at best; a break in the storm. As you pointed out, the next administration could go right back to jailing people for the given offense.

 

[cwillour]

If the executive is logical and just he would free people under his charge, in the cases where he refuses to imprison new lawbreakers.

Meanwhile the people should hopefully work vigorously to end the law itself, if it is truly an unjust/undesirable law. The executive's position can only be viewed as temporary, at best; a break in the storm. As you pointed out, the next administration could go right back to jailing people for the given offense.

Except when the present administration unilaterally decides to issue amnesty (for the past offenses) plus licenses to make the activity legal for a period that expires well after the present administration leaves office.

I see this as the equivalent of a mayor not only directing their prosecutors to not spend resources prosecuting the illegal use of prescription narcotics but also requiring the medical examiner to issue multi-year unlimited refill prescriptions (by-passing the normal requirements of medical need) to people if they come to ME's office and pay a nominal fee.

Whether you agree with requiring prescriptions for narcotics or not, I doubt you have a problem seeing the distinction between a decision not to prosecute current/past actions and the issuance of a "permit" to preclude prosecution for future/continued actions.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oops, bad news, INGOtarians, your beloved little despot just admitted that he made law. Shake your poms poms here.

Here's the video:

Obama: ?I just took an action to change the law? « Hot Air

 

[steveh_131]

Captain Straw-man strikes again.

You're arguing with fictional beings. A swing and a miss, Kirk.

 

[T.Lex]

Well hold on, now. He said "I just took an action to change the law..." Clearly, to parse it out, him taking an action TO change the law is not actually changing the law. Every Republican has "taken an action" to change the law, but just hasn't done it.

Oh.

Wait.

He also said, "Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally."

Well now.

I gotta say, dude is worthless at extemporaneous speaking. It must've sucked having him as a professor. Or a lawyer.

"No, your honor, when I said I objected on the basis of relevance, I *MEANT* that I objected on the basis of no foundation. Totally the same."

ETA: Having said the above, I still think what he did was "legal." So far as I've seen, he has modified enforcement priorities and processes.

 

[steveh_131]

I gotta say, dude is worthless at extemporaneous speaking. It must've sucked having him as a professor. Or a lawyer.

That video made me cringe. It has been enjoyable watching his followers all turn on him, though.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You're arguing with fictional beings.

Yes, exactly!

Detective Winn Bear does not exist.

However, Obama's despotism does exist. No one should be allowed to get away with defending law by whim.