Hicks saga continues

[BoSoxGal]

Lord Jim: Judge, jury & executioner.

[Gob]

I find Jim guilty of not saluting the Aussie flag daily. There's no actual law about it, but I'm sure we could make one up in future.

~sigh~

Yuck yuck yuck...

Yah kno I'm only ribbin yer.

Apparently the Aussies care more about an Australian traitor being held for a few years in a US camp (after having been removed directly from the battlefield) then they care about the actual acts of treason that the traitor committed...

That seems to be the case, and I find it very sad...

Well we have this thing called justice which we like, I know it's not a tradition in your country....

[wesw]

makes being "shot while trying to escape" seem to be the only way to deal with these fellows....

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, because let's ditch the whole 'nation ruled by laws' premise and turn ourselves into a true police state - that will really show those terrorists!

[wesw]

nah, just make it easy for them to try to escape, and impossible for them to succeed. no law against that...
.

[Big RR]

Why not just shoot them and say they were shot trying to escape? Or, better yet, beat them to death and just say they killed themselves? Why the need to give them even the slightest chance of escape?

[wesw]

lol. i actually agree with you guys and am just trolling a bit. but where was this support for the rule of law when Obama and holder decided that they must change immigration law because congress wouldn t address it to their satisfaction? and why aren t you crying for a declaration of war if we are to continue this 14 yr conflict against islamist extremism? i understand that the executive branch has the power to address military emergencies, but 14 yrs is ridiculous.

[Big RR]

I've often said the executive branch has far too much power to commit American troops without Congressional approval (I would think a declaration of war would be problematic as there is not any state we are at war with).

As for the immigration EOs, I think presidents often misuse EOs to set policy, but here I do not think it is improper as he is just using the prosecutorial discretion it always has to choose to prosecute some persons and not others. DACA (both iterations and the recently promulgated DAPA) are temporary discretionary actions wherein removal will not be sought against certain classes of undocumented immigrants (I refrain from the use of illegal because those who entered without documentation are subject to certain civil penalties including removal, but generally not criminal ones) and will also allow them to seek work permits. I'll wait for the final court ruling, but IMHO, this is exactly within the purview of the executive in marshaling its prosecutorial resources; real reform leading to any permanent status must still come from Congress.

[wesw]

RR, you are one of the most thoughtful and level headed posters on this board, but....

when you , or anyone else, drifts into lawyer-speak, my eyes glass over and I stop reading....

[Joe Guy]

Your expressed opinion in regards to what constitutes lawyer-speak is your own and not necessarily factual. Lex non distinguitur nos non distinguere debemus.

[wesw]

anyway, prosecutorial discretion is one thing, giving a whole class of people a pass, as far as the law goes, is another. if he were to evaluate each case on its individual merits, prosecutorial discretion would be allowed. i think that he has ventured into lawmaking, which is not in the purview of the executive branch

[Big RR]

wes--Pardon me if I was confusing; my main point re the immigration executive orders was that they are not illegal because they don't change the law at all; all they say is that some immigrants (kids who arrived here while young and adults here with American citizen children) will not be removed for a period of 2 years (possibly longer). The executive department, which runs ICE (Immigration), cannot remove everyone here illegally, so a decision has been made at the top to leave these groups of people alone and pursue others. The people affected will not have any right to remain here permanently, but they will be able to not fear deportation and to receive temporary work permits allowing them to work and support their families for this limited period of time. Any permanent changes will have to come from Congress.

Now a court has temporarily blocked the latest Executive orders in this area, and it is being appealed. I'll wait to see what the courts say, but IMHO this is a legal use of presidential power to control who they will prosecute; that's why we have a separation of powers.

anyway, prosecutorial discretion is one thing, giving a whole class of people a pass, as far as the law goes, is another. if he were to evaluate each case on its individual merits, prosecutorial discretion would be allowed. i think that he has ventured into lawmaking, which is not in the purview of the executive branch

Well I guess you did get the point I was making, but I wrote the above post already so I'll still post it.

I imagine the district court judge issuing the injunction would agree with you, but as a practical matter many times prosecutorial and enforcement discretion is available to entire classes of offenders, not on a case by case basis. We'll have to wait and see what the courts ultimately rule.

[Lord Jim]

As for the immigration EOs, I think presidents often misuse EOs to set policy, but here I do not think it is improper as he is just using the prosecutorial discretion it always has to choose to prosecute some persons and not others.

As I'm sure most folks around here know, I am not one to yell "unconstitutional!" about policy I decisions I dislike, (in fact I've taken people to task for doing that)

But I find the "prosecutorial discretion" argument in this case a huge stretch and extremely disingenuous, since this goes far beyond just prioritizing which crimes to prosecute. This EO creates a whole new bureaucracy to administer a whole new program that grants quasi-legal status (including issuing social security cards) to millions of illegal aliens, without congressional authorization. It's a completely new program that requires it's own funding to set up and administer.

It's kind of tough to argue, "we don't have the resources to act to deport everyone, so we're using our discretion not to deport this group of people" when you're setting up a program that requires additional financial resources.

I don't know if it's ultimately going to be found to be unConstitutional by the SC, (which is where this is definitely headed) but based on the transparently hollow arguments that the Administration is making to justify it, I think there's a very good chance that could happen.

As I've said before, I would really like to see a final resolution on the whole immigration reform issue. I think we need to pass something like the senate bill from the last session and get this behind us; so long as this continues to fester, my party will continue to get beat up over it.

That having been said this EO really looks like it could be an over reach to me.

[wesw]

no you weren t confusing RR. i do understand words, lawyer speak included. i just think that lawyers can make things un necessarily complicated by using byzantine language that is un pleasant to read. simple clear language can make the same points and be more influential because, unlike me, many people don t have the prerequisite vocabulary to wade thru the legal speak.

i just assume that someone is trying to confuse the issue when they use un necessarily complicated, convoluted language, and my eyes glaze over and i don t bother to make the effort to read the whole post. i still haven t done more than skim over it.

if you want your speech to be persuasive i believe that you should make it accessible to as many people as possible. i don t mean that you should talk down to people at all, just that clear and concise language is more effective when you are making an argument.

but what do i know? i m just a simple fisherman....

[Big RR]

Jim--where in the law do you see an entirely new bureaucracy being created? It's using the existing bureaucracy as I see it and will just require an adjustment of resources within existing agencies. There is no new status being created, and the issuance of social security cards has always been part of the functions of the executive branch, not congress. Further, so far as I know, no new funding is being requested (as only congress could grant this), it is being done within the current budget by moving resources--but maybe I am wrong so please clarify that for me.

We'll see what the court says, but I do not see the argument as disingenuous, let alone extremely so.

[wesw]

also, i don t mean to suggest that you (italics) are trying to confuse the issue at all, just that it appears that way and that it can be an un wanted result. some do try to confuse the issues, but not you. you often enlighten me about things i don t understand and i admire you because your views are not set in stone. if someone presents you with facts that you were not aware of, you give them proper consideration and change your opinion if warranted.

were you aware that the border patrol was just advised that they should not issue notices to appear to illegal immigrants detained near the Mexican border, unless they specifically request a hearing? what do you think of that? i have only heard it reported thru one source so i m not certain, but they read the order verbatim from a sheet of paper, on the air, so i assume that the reporter would not jeapordize his career by making it up

[Big RR]

Wes--I have not found any news service that reports that confirm the refusal to issue notices rumor, nor have I seen anything which explains what the guidelines are. It might be true, but if it is I doubt it is as broad-based as the rumor appears to state it is. I'd be interested to see more about this.

[wesw]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 9000,d.cWc

there you go RR

[BoSoxGal]

Why was amnesty by executive order okay when Reagan did it but not when Obama does it?

[wesw]

who has said that that was ok? and why should we debate it? Reagan is dead, he can t hurt you anymore ....