The President Trump Immigration Thread

[HoughMade]

See, I don't get this. You say Obama didn't do much. Then why the disdain? For many people, it's the stuff that he accomplished that irks them. ACA, repealing "Don't Ask...," the bailouts, expanding hate crime protections, the Iran deal. Those are hardly nothing, and many people disagreed with them. The current president reversing or attempting to reverse Obama-era policies is one of the reason people like him, right?

Kut is on point.

If one claims to like small government, then you should inherently like gridlock and presidents who get little to nothing done. President Obama was most certainly not one of those.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single thing that I wanted President Obama to do...that he would actually do.

 

[Phase2]

Kut is on point.

If one claims to like small government, then you should inherently like gridlock and presidents who get little to nothing done. President Obama was most certainly not one of those.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single thing that I wanted President Obama to do...that he would actually do.

Actually, I love what Trump has gotten done- reduced regulations bigly. That is in keeping both with small government and presidential effectiveness.

I'll agree with you on Obama who never saw any issue where more government wasn't the solution- except for stopping enforcement of legitimate laws that he didn't like such as border enforcement.

 

[2A_Tom]

It would be mislabeling to call anything that Mr. Obama did as an accomplishment unless you are in favor of the destruction of our economy and freedom.

 

[HoughMade]

It would be mislabeling to call anything that Mr. Obama did as an accomplishment unless you are in favor of the destruction of our economy and freedom.

He would​ call those accomplishments.

 

[2A_Tom]

My point exactly!

 

[Dead Duck]

'Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions'


https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-green-lights-trumps-immigration-asylum-ban

 

[jamil]

'Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions'


https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-green-lights-trumps-immigration-asylum-ban

Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented, “Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding people who seek shelter from persecution.”

That’s not a dissent. It’s a political disagreement. The question they’re supposed to answer is not which outcome should we have. The question they should answer is, does the president have the authority granted by the constitution to change policy ordered by other presidents, long-standing or not. The answer seems pretty straightforward. Yes, he certainly does have that authority.

 

[KG1]

Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented, “Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding people who seek shelter from persecution.”

That’s not a dissent. It’s a political disagreement. The question they’re supposed to answer is not which outcome should we have. The question they should answer is, does the president have the authority granted by the constitution to change policy ordered by other presidents, long-standing or not. The answer seems pretty straightforward. Yes, he certainly does have that authority.

DACA

 

[BugI02]

Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented, “Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding people who seek shelter from persecution.”

That’s not a dissent. It’s a political disagreement. The question they’re supposed to answer is not which outcome should we have. The question they should answer is, does the president have the authority granted by the constitution to change policy ordered by other presidents, long-standing or not. The answer seems pretty straightforward. Yes, he certainly does have that authority.

THIS^^^ So very much this

Remember how important it is to have Trump in the WH and McConnell at the head of a Republican Senate to continue the process of taking back the courts. If we can retake the House, so much the better

 

[jamil]

DACA

Yep. Exactly the point. Congress couldn’t pass it. Obama had to use his pen and phone to enact it. If he has the power to do that. Trump has the power to undo it. They wanted that to go to SCOTUS to bypass congress altogether and enshrine DACA in de facto law like R v W. Their dissent was about the policy, not about whether the President has the authority.

 

[KG1]

Yep. Exactly the point. Congress couldn’t pass it. Obama had to use his pen and phone to enact it. If he has the power to do that. Trump has the power to undo it. They wanted that to go to SCOTUS to bypass congress altogether and enshrine DACA in de facto law like R v W. Their dissent was about the policy, not about whether the President has the authority.

I totally agree with your take on this.

One of the main functions of SCOTUS is to ensure that lower courts keep political and policy differences out of thier rulings.

Yet it appears that we have two justices pontificating about things in their dissenting opinions that they are supposed to be guarding against.

IMO it’s a disservice to the honor of being the ultimate constitutional LAW arbiters that has been bestowed upon them.

 

[KLB]

I totally agree with your take on this.

One of the main functions of SCOTUS is to ensure that lower courts keep political and policy differences out of thier rulings.

Yet it appears that we have two justices pontificating about things in their dissenting opinions that they are supposed to be guarding against.

IMO it’s a disservice to the honor of being the ultimate constitutional LAW arbiters that has been bestowed upon them.

It is pretty telling that even the other two liberal justices agreed with the majority here.

 

[T.Lex]

I totally agree with your take on this.

One of the main functions of SCOTUS is to ensure that lower courts keep political and policy differences out of thier rulings.

Yet it appears that we have two justices pontificating about things in their dissenting opinions that they are supposed to be guarding against.

IMO it’s a disservice to the honor of being the ultimate constitutional LAW arbiters that has been bestowed upon them.

Sometimes there are dissents precisely because they will be dissents.

There was a dissent in the Dred Scott case, too. Oh, and a very compelling dissent in the Obamacare case.

It is an opportunity for justices to express themselves a bit more freely, because there's no precedential value to it.

But, on the substance, this was absolutely the right decision. The authority to take action is a separate issue from whether it is wise to take the action.

 

[2A_Tom]

Sometimes there are dissents precisely because they will be dissents.

There was a dissent in the Dred Scott case, too. Oh, and a very compelling dissent in the Obamacare case.

It is an opportunity for justices to express themselves a bit more freely, because there's no precedential value to it.

But, on the substance, this was absolutely the right decision. The authority to take action is a separate issue from whether it is wise to take the action.

But, I would expect a Justice of the Supreme Court to dissent according to The Constitution and established law rather than making it up out of whole cloth.

 

[KG1]

But, I would expect a Justice of the Supreme Court to dissent according to The Constitution and established law rather than making it up out of whole cloth.

This is the issue right here. A dissenting opinion shouldn’t be based on political/policy differences.

Bottom line is does the President have constitutional authority?

 

[T.Lex]

This is the issue right here. A dissenting opinion shouldn’t be based on political/policy differences.

Bottom line is does the President have constitutional authority?

In reverse order - of course, and so does SCOTUS. The latter gets to decide what the scope of those powers are. In this case, the executive really does have executive authority over immigration operations.

And, in reality, as a society we tend to embrace dissenting opinions based on policy differences when they favor our side.

 

[2A_Tom]

Lawyerly response expected.

 

[KLB]

Sometimes there are dissents precisely because they will be dissents.

There was a dissent in the Dred Scott case, too. Oh, and a very compelling dissent in the Obamacare case.

It is an opportunity for justices to express themselves a bit more freely, because there's no precedential value to it.

But, on the substance, this was absolutely the right decision. The authority to take action is a separate issue from whether it is wise to take the action.

In other words, the justices will sometimes take the opportunity to pontificate and share their political opinions.

 

[actaeon277]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/29/dhss-remain-mexico-plan-causes-tens-thousands-aban/
Trump admin's 'Remain in Mexico' plan causes tens of thousands to abandon asylum


[video=youtube;SXLt9D4Z6Ms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXLt9D4Z6Ms[/video]

 

[jamil]

Okay. Looks like that worked.