ICE - Warned

[TGHusker]

The existing immigration law still stands as the 'law of the land'. Obama's executive order has been placed on hold by a federal judge. Obama tells ICE agents basically to not do their job under existing law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a violation of his oath of office to uphold the constitution and isn't it promoting 'lawlessness'??

 

I just don't get it how a president, any president, can tell an agency not to fulfill their obligations under the law..

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

 

copied here:

President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter.

“Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.”

“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”

UPDATE: Here are the remarks, via a transcript provided by the White House:

MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences

THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.

In the U.S. military, when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it. It doesn’t mean that everybody follows the order. If they don’t, they’ve got a problem. And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward.

[knapplc]

Presidents have done this forever. Their authority is equal to that of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, so when there's disagreements, they do "their thing" until the legal wrangling is hashed out.

 

Here's one example with the most recent Bush. If I had 30 more seconds I could probably find examples for Clinton, the first Bush, Reagan and Carter.

[TGHusker]

Presidents have done this forever. Their authority is equal to that of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, so when there's disagreements, they do "their thing" until the legal wrangling is hashed out.

 

Here's one example with the most recent Bush. If I had 30 more seconds I could probably find examples for Clinton, the first Bush, Reagan and Carter.

Knapp, probably all true. I just don't like it when it involves potential security issue and potential endangerment of the citizens as this article suggests:

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ICE-illegals-Obama-amnesty-detention-beds/2015/02/26/id/627022/

 

Long and short of it, I know both sides like to use immigration as a hot button political campaign issue, but I long for the the day when it becomes a non-issue - resolved with a set comprehensive policy and real secure boarders.

[knapplc]

And here I thought we were done with fear-mongering articles. What Obama is doing is no different - and in many cases exactly the same, as W. It's in the link I provided:

 

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

 

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.

 

"We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."

 

[BigRedBuster]

I agree. It is troubling when any President tells law enforcement to not follow the law.

 

However, your last statement is very true. Neither side wants this to go away. It's just like abortion, homeless, poverty, drugs....and on and on and on. They both gain political power from these issues and if they go away, they have nothing to point a finger at the other side over.

 

Immigration issues will never go away. Now, we can sure have a more reasonable immigration policy but it will always be something that needs regulated with policy constantly being tweaked here or there. There is no such thing as a "real secure border" unless we are going to build what compares to the DMZ zone in Korea.

[knapplc]

Absolutely neither side wants this to go away - the two "sides" are really on the same side. The D's & R's are window-dressing for the grand stage play they're putting on.

 

Look at this situation. Obama, a Democrat, is being accused of overstepping his presidential authority by a congress controlled by his rival party, the Republicans. He's being accused of circumventing the law and putting America/Americans in danger.

 

The exact same thing happened in 2006, only the president was a Republican and his rival party, the Democrats, were the ones crying foul.

 

Neither of these parties believes the words coming out of their mouths. It's all a distraction. Meanwhile, the business of the government, the edifice that transcends Democrat/Repbulican, marches on.

 

 

<insert knapplc's constant plea to stop associating one's self with a particular political party here>

[BigRedBuster]

Absolutely neither side wants this to go away - the two "sides" are really on the same side. The D's & R's are window-dressing for the grand stage play they're putting on.

 

Look at this situation. Obama, a Democrat, is being accused of overstepping his presidential authority by a congress controlled by his rival party, the Republicans. He's being accused of circumventing the law and putting America/Americans in danger.

 

The exact same thing happened in 2006, only the president was a Republican and his rival party, the Democrats, were the ones crying foul.

 

Neither of these parties believes the words coming out of their mouths. It's all a distraction. Meanwhile, the business of the government, the edifice that transcends Democrat/Repbulican, marches on.

 

 

<insert knapplc's constant plea to stop associating one's self with a particular political party here>

That sums up my utter disgust over political issues all the way from taxes, the poor, racism, national security, budgets, abortion...bla bla bla.....

 

Problem is, the major media outlets aren't going to hold anyone accountable by looking back at past actions because they all have a vested interest in various political groups.

[TGHusker]

 

And here I thought we were done with fear-mongering articles. What Obama is doing is no different - and in many cases exactly the same, as W. It's in the link I provided:

 

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

 

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.

 

"We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."

 

 

I agree, Knapp I read the article you linked - GWB doing it is just as bad. It all strikes me as a bad way to govern and both parties do it.

[knapplc]

and both parties do it.

 

 

 

I'm going to make an Independent out of you yet.

[TGHusker]

 

and both parties do it.

 

 

 

I'm going to make an Independent out of you yet.

 

Well, if there weren't just 2 parties to vote for - I'd be one already. I figure I have to reg as a Rep just to have some small little influence wt my vote in the primaries. And yes, I do appreciate the 'liberation' you have as an indep. There is added pressure in some ways to stand up for 'your team' even if I don't agree wt a lot of the junk in the rep party. The problem of the two party system - it is always the lessor of the 2 evils.

[BigRedBuster]

I've never felt better about my position in politics than since I dropped both parties.