What is the legal justification for letting some illegals stay?

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Would we allow the president to declare that certain people are exempt from our DUI laws or laws against bank robbery.??

Anyone caught here illegally should be deported. The law grants no exceptions.
 
Associate Justice Ginsburg outlined it in oral argument.

Any government enterprise with finite resources needs to prioritize.

I agree that Trump said he'd deport them all.

But our flip-flop-flipper in chief picked an alternate promise he prefers.

It's quirky I admit. BUT, it's not entirely insensible. Deporting gang members, illegal aliens with criminal records beyond simply being here; not insensible.
 
Back in the 1980s here in NYC, the courts/police used to hold arrested illegal aliens for Immigration to pick up. Immigration would rarely show up.

The City eventually realized it was costing them a fortune needlessly to hold these people because Immigration was hit or miss about showing up. So eventually a notification to Immigration was made, if they didn't show up the prisoner would be bailed or released if eligible.

Then the notifications to Immigration eventually just stopped.

Out of that grew an official policy that Immigration COULDN'T be notified.

Out of that grew Sanctuary Cities.

I imagine with so many more illegals now it'll be more difficult than it was 30 years ago. I think the President is up to it though.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Would we allow the president to declare that certain people are exempt from our DUI laws or laws against bank robbery.??

Anyone caught here illegally should be deported. The law grants no exceptions.
Click to expand...
Not quite. A person without proof of legal entry can still apply for asylum and, although the immigration law may not give non-asylum seekers without documentation a defense, the President could grant them legal status under his executive power if, for example, he determined that their presence was necessary for national defense. There are other possible avenues for such executive action as well. Not sayin' it's a good idea, just pointing out that our constitution is unique in giving POTUS the powers of head of state, head of the government and Commander-in-Chief. A president can do a helluva lot more than most people realize because his restraints tend to be political rather than constitution. Trump may shift this dramatically if confronted by a hostile Congress.
 
sear said:
Associate Justice Ginsburg outlined it in oral argument.

Any government enterprise with finite resources needs to prioritize.

.
Click to expand...

So give us some examples. People that the govt has announced are exempt from laws against bank robbery or DUI. Let's here it, bigtalk.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
Not quite. A person without proof of legal entry can still apply for asylum and, although the immigration law may not give non-asylum seekers without documentation a defense, the President could grant them legal status under his executive power if, for example, he determined that their presence was necessary for national defense. There are other possible avenues for such executive action as well. Not sayin' it's a good idea, just pointing out that our constitution is unique in giving POTUS the powers of head of state, head of the government and Commander-in-Chief. A president can do a helluva lot more than most people realize because his restraints tend to be political rather than constitution. Trump may shift this dramatically if confronted by a hostile Congress.
Click to expand...

You say the constitution gives the president the power to tell some criminals they are exempt from the law.???? Then why does it say one of the duties of the president is "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". ?? THINK
 
"So give us some examples. People that the govt has announced are exempt from laws against bank robbery or DUI. Let's here it, bigtalk." TK #7

Associate Justice Ginsberg already has.

But if you like bank robbery and DUI as examples, fairly well.

If there are two bank robberies in town, one where the pen from the counter is stolen, along with the flimsy chain it was attached with,
but across the street $12.7 $Million was heisted at gunpoint, it is the latter heist that's most likely to get the more intensive police investigation.

DUI, another good example.
In a town of 100,000 population or more, there may both DUI, and jay-walking violations.

BUT !!

Jay-walkers may be as great a threat to themselves as anyone else.
It's the DUI that risks both innocent victims, more severe harm, and the more detriment.

So yes. I've never seen a police roadblock to catch jay-walkers. The roadblocks are for DUI.

We prioritize when we have scarce resources, and deporting violent felons that are also illegal aliens is a higher priority than deporting well employed, otherwise law abiding illegal aliens.

Capisce?
 
Why are these hundreds of thousands of young strong men not staying in their own countries to fight for their countries and better their lives there? They have no desire to give their lives for any good purpose. So, now they roam the world to take from others. This is madness.

 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Would we allow the president to declare that certain people are exempt from our DUI laws or laws against bank robbery.??

Anyone caught here illegally should be deported. The law grants no exceptions.
Click to expand...

Alfred de Zayas, Forced Population Transfer, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, online 2009, with reference to Articles 6b and 6c of the Nuremberg indictment and the relevant parts of the judgment concerning the forced transfer of Poles and Frenchmen by the Nazis.

Trump and his army of flying monkeys is strikingly similar.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
You say the constitution gives the president the power to tell some criminals they are exempt from the law.???? Then why does it say one of the duties of the president is "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". ?? THINK
Click to expand...
the use executive orders labeled "prosecutorial discretion" -which is fine up to a point- it's not unusual..

The problem becomes when the executive uses that for a CLASS of PEOPLE - then it becomes ( de facto) 'legislating'
That's what Obama did with DARPA -and SCOTUS shot it down
 
Stretch said:
Why are these hundreds of thousands of young strong men not staying in their own countries to fight for their countries and better their lives there? They have no desire to give their lives for any good purpose. So, now they roam the world to take from others. This is madness.

Click to expand...
In fairness to Syrians..there is nothing to fight for except sectarianism. The country has so many groups it's difficult to say which really are nationalistic,and which are simply opportunistic.

Then the nationalistic groups split under Islamists/non-sectarian..
then there are the foreign jihadists who simply want Armagedon like Daesh.

Even Assad has a rightful claim to power because he was democractically elected.
 
More illegals were deported under the Obama administration than will ever be deported under Trumph.
Trumph likes cheap tomatos ...
 
sear said:
Associate Justice Ginsburg outlined it in oral argument.

Any government enterprise with finite resources needs to prioritize.

I agree that Trump said he'd deport them all.

But our flip-flop-flipper in chief picked an alternate promise he prefers.

It's quirky I admit. BUT, it's not entirely insensible. Deporting gang members, illegal aliens with criminal records beyond simply being here; not insensible.
Click to expand...

That's the argument for not following the law?

Seems kind of spurious doesn't it?

Oh wait not to you libs who are trying to import a permanent underclass to pick your oranges
 
"Why are these hundreds of thousands of young strong men not staying in their own countries to fight for their countries and better their lives there? They have no desire to give their lives for any good purpose. So, now they roam the world to take from others. This is madness." S #11

Couldn't the same criticism be leveled at the U.S. Founders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top