Wife of 7th Special Forces Group vet faces deportation under tighter immigration rule

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes I was and this is why I included the disclaimer. It has been shown a few times that his and other's EOs were considered over-reach. As an example, many here were unhappy with Trump declaring that bump stocks should be illegal.

My opinion has not changed. Congress needs to legislate, not sit on its hands while the judicial and executive branches go back and forth on checks and balances****


***Disclaimer: bfine is not opposed to checks and balances.

Solid post, I cannot disagree. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 02:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did Trump actually create an EO on bumpstocks or just tweet about it?  I don't remember him signing anything.

(03-06-2018, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From my understanding he directed the DOJ; however, I'm not sure how that modifies the point.

(03-06-2018, 02:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just my curiosity.

There has been some debate about if Trump's tweets are official presidential statements or can officially reflect policy.  And I don't remember if this was just a thought he threw out there of if there was an actual EO.

Bfine is correct, He did issue an executive memo, which is a type of executive action. It's basically the same thing as an EO but, as Bfine specified, it's different in that it is usually used to direct an agency in doing something.

Tweets themselves are "official statements" on his behalf but do not constitute an executive action and have no legal standing in terms of policy creation. Judges have referred to them, however, to establish context for his implementation of policy ( i.e. interpreting his EO as discriminatory based on statements he tweeted related to it). 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 03:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Bfine is correct, He did issue an executive memo, which is a type of executive action. It's basically the same thing as an EO but, as Bfine specified, it's different in that it is usually used to direct an agency in doing something.

Tweets themselves are "official statements" on his behalf but do not constitute an executive action and have no legal standing in terms of policy creation. Judges have referred to them, however, to establish context for his implementation of policy ( i.e. interpreting his EO as discriminatory based on statements he tweeted related to it). 

Got it.  Thanks.

[Dill]

(03-06-2018, 12:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Propensity was the correct word. For instance was it necessary to take federal funding away from schools that did not allow children to use restrooms of choice?

***It is not the Executives role to pass laws.


***Disclaimer; This sentence should be taken for its intent  

What laws did Obama "pass"?  Aren't you citing an effort to uphold a civil rights law which set conditions on federal funding for schools? The president's job is to enforce laws, isn't it?

"Propensity" suggests that Obama was frequently inclined to do what he wanted regardless of Congress.

The record of his presidency suggests that Congressional impasse forced him to ad hoc management of some problems through executive orders and the like.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sounds like it's about you doing something and then complaining if the rules change later. Because they can change.


And that sound like a very emotional response.

Illegals need to go. The only people I have even the smallest empathy for are under 18 children of illegals who were born here. Once they turn 18 and a half it’s clear they do not care about the laws and should be deported without hesitation.

If they cared about the laws they would file as soon as they turned 18.

We should not be keeping law breakers here when we have zero obligation to do so. Let them go to their own country and break laws there.

We are a nation of laws.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 04:15 PM)Dill Wrote: What laws did Obama "pass"?  Aren't you citing an effort to uphold a civil rights law which set conditions on federal funding for schools? The president's job is to enforce laws, isn't it?

"Propensity" suggests that Obama was frequently inclined to do what he wanted regardless of Congress.

The record of his presidency suggests that Congressional impasse forced him to ad hoc management of some problems through executive orders and the like.

Is this a reflection of the Executive Orders issued?

https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart

Quote:Why counting executive orders is an awful way to measure presidential power


During the past couple years of debate over President Obama's use of presidential power, some liberals have been skeptical of the very idea that he might be expanding it at all. Some version of a chart showing how frequently presidents use executive orders is often cited (this one, from earlier this summer, is courtesy of the Brookings Institute):




Yet this chart of executive orders actually shows us very little about presidential power, as Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told me when I was reporting a feature this summer. Mayer is the author of the book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, so he should know.

1) Executive orders vary hugely in significance
First of all,  executive orders vary wildly in importance — some are vast and wide-ranging, while many others are utterly insignificant. For example, on most years, the president issues an executive order midway through December directing agencies to let employees leave work at noon on December 24th. And last February, Obama issued a four-page executive order renaming the "National Security Staff" to the "National Security Council Staff."

By contrast, Harry Truman issued an executive order to desegregate the military. And, obviously, other executive orders fall somewhere in between.

"With executive orders, the number is less important than the substance," Mayer said. In one of his studies, he drew up a sample of about 1,000 executive orders and tried to determine which actually had substantive importance — and found that only between 15 and 25 percent did.

2) Executive orders are only a small part of possible presidential actions
"In the press, you frequently will see the term executive orders as meaning anything a president can do unilaterally or by himself — but that's not right," Mayer told me. "There is a formal legal document called the executive order, which is published in the federal register. But that's actually only a very small part of the range of unilateral actions the president has."

Bowdoin political science professor Andrew Rudalevige elaborated in this paper analyzing Obama's use of executive power:

Quote:"Obama's 20 executive orders in 2013 marked the lowest single-year total in more than a century. But that same year he issued 41 presidential memoranda to the heads of departments and agencies, along with nine additional presidential 'determination's designed to serve as the basis for administrative action. This count does not include any such memoranda not published on the White House website, nor classified orders, nor the half dozen-plus Presidential Policy Guidance or the Presidential Policy Directive documents produced that year through the National Security Council advising process. Nor does it include proposed regulations, signing statements, legal interpretations, or administrative orders technically issued by department heads but at White House behest."

"You'll frequently see very cursory examinations that conclude that Obama's issued fewer executive orders, so people draw the inference of 'well, he's fine.' That doesn't do it," Mayer continued. "There are lots of other actions he's taken. And most of the Obama actions that have so exercised Republicans have not been executive orders."

For instance, neither Obama's 2012 deportation relief program nor the various delays to the Affordable Care Act came about through executive order.

So why do executive orders tend to get so much attention? As Rudalevige writes in his paper, they're "easy to measure."
They're published in the Federal Register and now on the White House website here. "Perhaps partially as a result" of this relative transparency, Rudalevige continues, "they are not always presidents' preferred vehicle for directing administrative behavior" — and they've been in decline for decades.

And a reference for all POTUS up through now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 04:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Illegals need to go.   The only people I have even the smallest empathy for are under 18 children of illegals who were born here.    Once they turn 18 and a half it’s clear they do not care about the laws and should be deported without hesitation.    

If they cared about the laws they would file as soon as they turned 18.  

We should not be keeping law breakers here when we have zero obligation to do so.   Let them go to their own country and break laws there.

We are a nation of laws.

I thought we were a Christian Nation full of love for one another.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 04:15 PM)Dill Wrote: What laws did Obama "pass"?  Aren't you citing an effort to uphold a civil rights law which set conditions on federal funding for schools? The president's job is to enforce laws, isn't it?

"Propensity" suggests that Obama was frequently inclined to do what he wanted regardless of Congress.

The record of his presidency suggests that Congressional impasse forced him to ad hoc management of some problems through executive orders and the like.

It has been explained and it is exactly why I placed the disclaimer that the sentence should be reviewed as intent and not a nit to pick. POTUS decided Gender identity was to fall under sexual discrimination. He wasn't enforcing anything; he was legislating. There are other examples such as his declaration of amnesty.

I did attempt to make this dynamic non-partisan by also providing an example of trump doing the same; however, so folks just like to argue.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 04:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: I thought we were a Christian Nation full of love for one another.  

We are. We can’t have open borders and a social safety net. So either we remove the social safety net and open he borders or we restrict the borders and have a social safety net.

Your choice.

[Dill]

(03-06-2018, 04:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is this a reflection of the Executive Orders issued?

https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart
Executive orders vary hugely in significance
First of all,  executive orders vary wildly in importance — some are vast and wide-ranging, while many others are utterly insignificant. For example, on most years, the president issues an executive order midway through December directing agencies to let employees leave work at noon on December 24th. And last February, Obama issued a four-page executive order renaming the "National Security Staff" to the "National Security Council Staff."

By contrast, Harry Truman issued an executive order to desegregate the military. And, obviously, other executive orders fall somewhere in between.

"With executive orders, the number is less important than the substance," Mayer said. In one of his studies, he drew up a sample of about 1,000 executive orders and tried to determine which actually had substantive importance — and found that only between 15 and 25 percent did.

You stole my thunder on that one. I was getting ready to emphasize the "qualitative" difference between orders as opposed to quantity.  By the way, if you average executive orders by 4 year term, Hoover blows all the rest away.

Still, where does Obama get off renaming already formed staff!

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 04:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is this a reflection of the Executive Orders issued?

https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart


And a reference for all POTUS up through now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

EO’s are often peeling back past actions. Most of trumps is doing just that..... as was Calvin Coolidge and Harding. They were rolling back progressives Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.

Obama had a progressive behind him so he was able to continue a lot of things already In place.

Trump is in the Harding/Coolidge position atm. It’s too bad Truman didn’t roll back the FDR crap he unleashed on the nation. We needed a Conservative there in a bad way.

[Dill]

(03-06-2018, 02:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just my curiosity.

There has been some debate about if Trump's tweets are official presidential statements or can officially reflect policy.  And I don't remember if this was just a thought he threw out there of if there was an actual EO.

I'm pretty sure some of them are "Presidential Directives"--e.g., a decision that no transgenders can serve in the military.  That would have the same force as an executive order, I believe. Problem with that one was no instruction on how to implement it or time table.

This is why it is not good for presidents to babble and send off enraged tweets.

[Dill]

(03-06-2018, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It has been explained and it is exactly why I placed the disclaimer that the sentence should be reviewed as intent and not a nit to pick. POTUS decided Gender identity was to fall under sexual discrimination. He wasn't enforcing anything; he was legislating. There are other examples such as his declaration of amnesty.

I did attempt to make this dynamic non-partisan by also providing an example of trump doing the same; however, so folks just like to argue.

All of us "just like to argue." That is why we are here and not in Klotsch. 

And you were "citing an effort to uphold a civil rights law which set conditions on federal funding for schools." Obama was enforcing Civil Rights legislation. When new or grey areas in law appear, people want guidelines, providing such is not, in itself, "legislating"--even if you don't like the guidance.

But you didn't respond to this point--
"The record of his presidency suggests that Congressional impasse forced him to ad hoc management of some problems through executive orders and the like." When that happens, it is necessity, and not "propensity," which explains the reach for an Executive Order.

Obama did not pass the Civil Rights Act. But when clarification on application arose, it was in his legal power--if not his duty--to do so, especially when Congress cannot or will not act on the matter. Our political system, within the framework of the Constitution, has evolved so that presidents can issue directives and orders where legislation would be unwieldy or take to long. If people think a president is "legislating" that may become a matter for the courts or Congress to settle, but the simple fact that he clarifies via guidelines how a law is to be followed is not per se "legislating."

Further, as I understand it, executive orders are only applicable to the Executive branch. That is one reason why they are "orders" not "laws." Any school willing to give up federal support to keep transgenders in the "right" restroom was NOT bound by LAW to follow Obama's guidance.

[fredtoast]

(03-06-2018, 02:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Allow me to take a different view, for the sake of discussion.  Would not your proposed interpretation open the system up to abuse by people who will marry a US citizen to take advantage of this interpretation?  Any time you provide a loophole to benefit sincere "victims" of a policy or law you can bet a flood of people will come crashing through the same loophole who have no business doing so.

(03-06-2018, 03:07 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If they allowed the protection even when a deportation order was present then that would open up immigration fraud wiu fake marriages.   Precisely what USCIS is trying to avoid

I don't see any loophole.  A person either enters the country illegally or not.  And the spouse of a military employee is either protected or not.  I don't see why the issue of a deportation order makes any difference. 

If people were going to abuse this privilege they can still do it before the deportation order is issued.

[fredtoast]

Anyone who does not like Executive Orders needs to complain about Congress not the President.

Congress can overturn an executive order any time they pass a law.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-07-2018, 06:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Anyone who does not like Executive Orders needs to complain about Congress not the President.

Congress can overturn an executive order any time they pass a law.

Agreed. They are all cowards to pull back the power . They should be the strongest branch of government but today they are the weakest. They have allowed, since teddy roosevelt and Woodrow wilson, the executive branch to be a defecto king. Which has allowed the judiciary to be the strongest since it’s the foil. Which is a joke in itself with the judges trying to legislate.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-07-2018, 06:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see any loophole.  A person either enters the country illegally or not.  And the spouse of a military employee is either protected or not.  I don't see why the issue of a deportation order makes any difference. 

If people were going to abuse this privilege they can still do it before the deportation order is issued.

They advertise on Craigslist to get a wife for more military benefits. Trading off more allowance from the military for a green card is indeed fraud. Illegals would flood over to do this for the protection. Since the legislature has zero interest in getting them out of the limbo they are currently.

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 07:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: EO’s are often peeling back past actions.    Most of trumps is doing just that..... as was Calvin Coolidge and Harding.   They were rolling back progressives Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.  

Obama had a progressive behind him so he was able to continue a lot of things already In place.    

Trump is in the Harding/Coolidge position atm.     It’s too bad Truman didn’t roll back the FDR crap he unleashed on the nation.   We needed a Conservative there in a bad way.

Harding and Coolidge roll back progressive reforms, depression immediately follows

Truman doesn't roll back progressive reforms, economic boom


So I guess we'll see what happens 

[BmorePat87]

(03-07-2018, 09:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They advertise on Craigslist to get a wife for more military benefits.  

Agreed, looking for a foreign wife on the internet and promising them benefits of being a US citizen is bad. 

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 09:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They advertise on Craigslist to get a wife for more military benefits.   Trading off more allowance from the military for a green card is indeed fraud.   Illegals would flood over to do this for the protection.   Since the legislature has zero interest in getting them out of the limbo they are currently.

But the law already allows this.  All they have to do is get married before the deportation order issues.

So letting this specific woman stay would not open up any new loophole.