Obama Immigration Policy Clearly Legal
Greg Sargent has a great explanation of the legal aspects of President Obama’s likely decision to focus deportation resources away from certain immigrants. Key points:
Even if Obama expands the numbers temporarily shielded from deportation, the enforcement machinery would still continue to deploy the same level of resources towards deportations.
And:
Congress has given the president wide latitude in temporarily shielding people for removal — including whole categories of people.
The whole thing is worth a read.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
75 responses to Obama Immigration Policy Clearly Legal
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 19:50
It will happen, the right wing will wail, screech impeachment and raise money
Mainah November 18th, 2014 at 20:36
You should read some of the comments at the end of that story on the Washington post. They already are.
tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 20:37
damn, they are predictable. What most are missing is the President has nothing to lose with vetoes and fighting against the rwnj’s.
Mainah November 18th, 2014 at 20:55
I thought the story was laid out very balanced and really intelligently. Of course, that one line that said “President Ted Cruz could repeal it.” was frightening.
Obewon November 19th, 2014 at 08:45
GWB’s former A.G. Alberto Gonzales wrote a book proposing denying foreign born (Ted Cruz) Citizenship with all other immigrants their naturalized citizenship deleting their right to vote, in exchange for BS work Visa’s and a promise not to deport (which a Visa guarantees:)
Proving once again A.G. Gonzales ignores the 14th amendmemnt, remaining constitutionally illiterate
Matt Dillon November 19th, 2014 at 07:40
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Dwendt44 November 19th, 2014 at 00:16
You’ll see the same ranting and raving on Alan’s facebook page.
Treason, commie, criminal, etc…
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 07:05
Hey, you finally got it right.
tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 20:50
It will happen, the right wing will wail, screech impeachment and raise money
Mainah November 18th, 2014 at 21:36
You should read some of the comments at the end of that story on the Washington post. They already are.
tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 21:37
damn, they are predictable. What most are missing is the President has nothing to lose with vetoes and fighting against the rwnj’s.
Mainah November 18th, 2014 at 21:55
I thought the story was laid out very balanced and really intelligently. Of course, that one line that said “President Ted Cruz could repeal it.” was frightening.
Obewon November 19th, 2014 at 09:45
GWB’s former A.G. Alberto Gonzales’ ghost, wrote a book proposing to deny foreign born (Ted Cruz) Citizenship ‘based upon Country of Birth! Alberto wants to delete immigrants right to Vote!’ Vs all other immigrants today having full naturalized citizenship with full citizen rights to vote.
‘Pay Taxes immigrants, but no more voting for local, U.S. congressional representation, and no POTUS voting either!’-Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales proposes to exchange work Visa’s today earning full citizenship; ‘for a promise not to deport’ (which any work Visa already guarantees in exchange for obeying laws.) https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/alberto-r-gonzales/a-conservative-and-compassionate-approach-to-immig/
Proving once again A.G. Gonzales ignores the 14th amendment, remaining constitutionally illiterate which is why he was forced to resign in 2007 after just 2 years! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082700372.html
On CNN, Gonzales argued that the president should be focused on securing the border because of a “nightmare scenario” where terrorists infiltrate into the country through Mexico. 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/becerra-schools-alberto-gonzales-deporting
Matt Dillon November 19th, 2014 at 08:40
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Dwendt44 November 19th, 2014 at 01:16
You’ll see the same ranting and raving on Alan’s facebook page.
Treason, commie, criminal, etc…
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 08:05
Hey, you finally got it right.
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 07:05
Time after time and in interview after interview, Obama himself said that he did not have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws. What happened? We had an election and the American people soundly rejected his policies. Instead of being a statesman and acknowledge this fact and act accordingly , this arrogant and spiteful man is willing to cause a constitutional crises over this issue. Little Barry must have his way, and to h e l l with what the American people think.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 07:22
What happened?
______
EXACTLY what Little Ronnie and Little Georgie did.
Either you didn’t know or you didn’t care. Why let facts get in the way?
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 07:36
Oh I see, if Ronnie and Georgie get away with it, Obama should too? Wah! wah! wah! This attempt goes far beyond what those other two did and besides, Obama himself said he did not have such authority. He puts himself up as some sort of high minded leader and constitutional guru by saying what he said and then just does a complete 180. The man has no principles whatsoever.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 07:52
Oh I see, if Ronnie and Georgie get away with it, Obama should too?
_____
1) It’s NOT a “getting away with” issue.
It is doing their job.
There is nothing wrong with it.
It is their right as executives.
2) It is the double standard. The right KNEW this when Little Ronnie and Little Georgie did.
Obama certainly has principles that are miles higher than those of his critics.
Obewon November 19th, 2014 at 08:30
Are Constitutional illiterates beginning to see why “Chairman Issa indictments = 0 after 50 weeks of hearings per year!” Exhibit A: “Obama Immigration Policy Clearly Legal: Congress has given the president wide latitude in temporarily shielding people for removal — including whole categories of people.”
That’s why America twice elected Constitutional Scholar Barack Obama Ph.D. 53% via 2:1 (D) 365-173 Mc’Palinbrawl-47%, and again by 3:2 (D)332-206 Mitt’nRyan-47%.
Spirit of America November 21st, 2014 at 12:23
You won’t get a direct to the point only answer on this question, not on left or right sites. Even he didn’t address it last night and a lot of hispanics are asking it too, cause of the delay, if legal now why 6 years after the promise?
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 08:05
Time after time and in interview after interview, Obama himself said that he did not have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws. What happened? We had an election and the American people soundly rejected his policies. Instead of being a statesman and acknowledge this fact and act accordingly , this arrogant and spiteful man is willing to cause a constitutional crises over this issue. Little Barry must have his way, and to h e l l with the Constitution and what the American people think.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 08:22
What happened?
______
EXACTLY what Little Ronnie and Little Georgie did.
Either you didn’t know or you didn’t care. Why let facts get in the way?
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 08:36
Oh I see, if Ronnie and Georgie get away with it, Obama should too? Wah! wah! wah! This attempt goes far beyond what those other two did and besides, Obama himself said he did not have such authority. He puts himself up as some sort of high minded leader and constitutional guru by saying what he said and then just does a complete 180. The man has no principles whatsoever.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 08:52
Oh I see, if Ronnie and Georgie get away with it, Obama should too?
_____
1) It’s NOT a “getting away with” issue.
It is doing their job.
There is nothing wrong with it.
It is their right as executives.
2) It is the double standard. The right KNEW this when Little Ronnie and Little Georgie did.
Obama certainly has principles that are miles higher than those of his critics.
Obewon November 19th, 2014 at 09:30
Are Constitutional illiterates beginning to see why “Chairman Issa indictments = 0 after 50 weeks of hearings per year”? Exhibit A: “Obama Immigration Policy Clearly Legal: Congress has given the president wide latitude in temporarily shielding people for removal — including whole categories of people.”-Professor Stuart Shapiro Ph.D! Quoting http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/18/getting-back-to-basics-in-the-raging-debate-over-deportations/
That’s why America twice elected Constitutional Scholar Barack Obama Ph.D. 53% via 2:1 (D) 365 to 173 Mc’Palinbrawl-47%, and again by 3:2 (D) 332-206 Mitt’nRyan-47%.
Spirit of America November 21st, 2014 at 13:23
You won’t get a direct to the point only answer on this question, not on left or right sites. Even he didn’t address it last night and a lot of hispanics are asking it too, cause of the delay, if legal now why 6 years after the promise?
Matt Dillon November 19th, 2014 at 07:38
Beer for my horses.
Matt Dillon November 19th, 2014 at 08:38
Beer for my horses.
Zed Power November 19th, 2014 at 10:42
Mexico invades.
President Hussein, ever eager to serve foreign interests, grabs his ankles and surrenders.
And the president is paying for this how?
Can’t congress get a restraining order to stop him from spending money he does not have for purpose that has no legal basis?
Obewon November 19th, 2014 at 10:53
It’s a Surplus Vs U.S. Citizen deficits: ‘immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services’-GWB 2007! http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 17:49
They said that about Bush and Reagan.
Come up with some original material
Obewon November 19th, 2014 at 11:53
Immigrants deliver Social Security, public benefit & Tax Surpluses Vs U.S. Citizen SS and public benefit deficits: ‘immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services’-GWB 2007! http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 18:49
They said that about Bush and Reagan.
Come up with some original material
amongoose November 21st, 2014 at 23:46
Not having seen the specifics of this executive order it’s a bit hard to make a call on legality. However if it does give them green cards, h1b visas, and social security numbers that is a change in immigration law which can only be done by congress.
amongoose November 22nd, 2014 at 00:46
Not having seen the specifics of this executive order it’s a bit hard to make a call on legality. However if it does give them green cards, h1b visas, and social security numbers that is a change in immigration law which can only be done by congress.
amongoose November 23rd, 2014 at 23:09
Looks like he did rewrite a few laws.
A SSN is only allowed for citizens, and legal aliens.
Giving them to them is in violation of social security laws.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf
Those who he is allowing to stay will be paying taxes. Unless they fall below the poverty line then they will receive the EITC. Once again it is only allowed for legal residents. Tax law rewritten.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC%2c-Earned-Income-Tax-Credit%2c-Questions-and-Answers
The same applies to his issuing green cards to them.
http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/green-card-eligibility
All of these changes to the law must be done by congress. Since they all are budgetary items they must originate in the house.
The senate bill was unconstitutional to start with.
Question for all of you.
If you are comfortable with his doing this.
Will you feel the same if a president Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul changes, refuses to prosecute, or refuses to challenge in court laws passed by states against say gay marriage, voter ID laws, or any other controversial issue?
Obewon November 23rd, 2014 at 23:24
Only Airheads think undocumented immigrants have SSN’s. It’s a TIN moron!
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 08:23
Issuing a TIN would as well be something not allowed to any but legal residents, the same with green cards.
According to Cecilia Munoz (former immigration lobbyist for La Raza) who is assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
They’re part of the tax system, she said, when she was asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.
“They are subject to our tax law.”
So isn’t this changing law?
Does it worry you about future presidents with whom you might not agree doing much the same?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 08:40
You’re fantasies, accusations and innuendos lack any “Proof” Here’s what CBO and others found:
Top 10 Myths About Immigration Immigrants don’t pay taxes.
Fact: Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
(Source http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm) http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-10-myths-about-immigration
• Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes.
• Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes. http://www.itep.org/immigration/
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 09:05
But how is it legal, from a president of either party?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 09:12
First cite and link your “story” source. ^look up and read article link preemptively debunking you & your “source”^
3) Congress has given the president wide latitude in temporarily shielding people for removal — including whole categories of people.
4) Immigration statute empowers the president to deploy a specific tool — known as “deferred action” — to shield people from deportations, and courts have recognized executive authority to apply it to whole categories of people. Professor Shapiro Ph.D. linked his sources above http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/18/getting-back-to-basics-in-the-raging-debate-over-deportations/
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 09:51
I am not referring to the no deportation order, although I may disagree with it, he has legal right to do that.
But under what legal authority does he have the ability to change immigration, IRS, and work status laws?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 10:12
You keep back peddling after being debunked and remain too afraid to cite any source of your fantasies. Nothing illegal is being proposed by Constitutional scholar Professor POTUS Obama.
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 12:15
Please site the legal justification for their obtaining work permits.
Back peddling? I never questioned the non enforcement of deportation law, only the legality of work permits.
And where is the E.O. that was signed?
It would answer a lot of questions.
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 16:05
Your asking what the legality is for H1-B, etc Visa work permits that have been in use for Decades!
A Green Card is granted to “lawful permanent residents” who maybe working in the USA, Or are in process to become Naturalized U.S. Citizens.
Any U.S. Citizen children must be supported, or these children will be orphaned into U.S. foster homes Keeping families together Vs Canadian Ted Cruz deportation solution for U.S. Citizens!
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 13:09
As reported by abc news.
They will be granted a waiver in obtaining a green card.
Is this a change in the law?
And if it isn’t how far can a government official go before it is?
GREEN CARDS
Loosen eligibility requirements for a waiver program for people seeking green cards. People who entered the U.S. illegally must leave the country for as much as 10 years before getting in line for a green card unless they get a waiver.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/key-elements-obamas-actions-immigration-27074525
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 15:53
What’s your problem? These “Green Card” regulations are exactly as currently legislated into current law. IF someone was deported “left the country” THEN they maybe barred from USA re-entry for up to “10 years.”
You realize these are “Parents” of U.S. Citizens per the 14th Amendment? And that they must pass a Criminal Background check proving they’ve broken no laws? (Immigration violations are “infractions” like your speeding tickets.)
Via your ABC AP Link: “PARENTS Protect from deportation and make eligible for work permits approximately 4.1 million people who are in the U.S. illegally but whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, regardless of whether the children are minors. To be eligible, the parents must have lived in the U.S. for five years. After passing background checks and paying fees, parents would be granted relief from deportation for three years at a time.”
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 16:22
Yes they are citizens. But what is the legal justification for the change in law to permit the chain migration. If it is using the Reagan and Jorge Bush EO’s those were to cover relatives of those covered by the Simpson Mazzoli bill in 1986. None of these people were odds are here for that bills enactment. Those that were here at the time of it’s passage are here legally, but it cannot be used retroactively for those who came later.
.
We may just have to agree to disagree on this and let the courts shake it all out.
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 16:36
What law change? You keep striking out.
tracey marie November 24th, 2014 at 09:17
how is what legal, he did NOT give amnesty, period.
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 09:38
No, not an amnesty just a promise of no deportation, although it is a very broad interpretation of prosecutorial discretion, that is technically legal. However if as it looks they are going to be allowed to access the tax system with it’s benefits, and obtain green cards, those could only be done by changing present law.
tracey marie November 24th, 2014 at 09:55
nope, once again you prove you do not understand or know exactlly what he did.
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 10:03
So exactly what did he do?
I can’t find the EO posted on the white house website.
Will they get work permits?
Will they be eligible for the EITC?
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 00:09
Looks like he did rewrite a few laws.
A SSN is only allowed for citizens, and legal aliens.
Giving them to them is in violation of social security laws.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf
Those who he is allowing to stay will be paying taxes. Unless they fall below the poverty line then they will receive the EITC. Once again it is only allowed for legal residents. Tax law rewritten.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC%2c-Earned-Income-Tax-Credit%2c-Questions-and-Answers
The same applies to his issuing green cards to them.
http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/green-card-eligibility
All of these changes to the law must be done by congress. Since they all are budgetary items they must originate in the house.
The senate bill was unconstitutional to start with.
Question for all of you.
If you are comfortable with his doing this.
Will you feel the same if a president Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul changes, refuses to prosecute, or refuses to challenge in court laws passed by states against say gay marriage, voter ID laws, or any other controversial issue?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 00:24
Only dissemblers say undocumented immigrants receive a SSN. It’s an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITINs) via 1986 Reagan & 1989 GHWB Amnesty. Only U.S. Citizens can collect U.S. benefits after proving U.S. Citizenship via Naturalization or Certified U.S. Birth Certificates.
Thanks for proving accurate information generally negates voting for GOP today: Fox News November 4, 2014 “exit poll data also shows that voters, by a 3-to-2 margin, actually favored offering the possibility of legal status to illegal immigrants. We rate Cruz’s claim False.”-Nonpartisan Pulitzer prize winner PolitiFact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/21/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-2014-elections-voters-made-clear-the/
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 09:23
Issuing a TIN would as well be something not allowed to any but legal residents, the same with green cards.
According to Cecilia Munoz (former immigration lobbyist for La Raza) who is assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
They’re part of the tax system, she said, when she was asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.
“They are subject to our tax law.”
So isn’t this changing law?
Does it worry you about future presidents with whom you might not agree doing much the same?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 09:40
Your fantasies, accusations and innuendos lack any “Proof.” Here’s what CBO and others found: “The National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)”-GWB 2007 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html
Top 10 Myths About Immigration Immigrants don’t pay taxes.
Fact: Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
(Source http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm ) via http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-10-myths-about-immigration
• Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes.
• Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes. http://www.itep.org/immigration/
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 10:05
But how is it legal, from a president of either party?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 10:12
First cite and link your “story” source. ^look up and read the article links preemptively debunking you & your “source”^
3) Congress has given the president wide latitude in temporarily shielding people for removal — including whole categories of people.
4) Immigration statute empowers the president to deploy a specific tool — known as “deferred action” — to shield people from deportations, and courts have recognized executive authority to apply it to whole categories of people.-Via Professor Shapiro Ph.D. citing and linking his sources above. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/18/getting-back-to-basics-in-the-raging-debate-over-deportations/
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 10:51
I am not referring to the no deportation order, although I may disagree with it, he has legal right to do that.
But under what legal authority does he have the ability to change immigration, IRS, and work status laws?
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 11:12
You keep back peddling after being debunked and remain too afraid to cite any source of your fantasies. Nothing illegal is being proposed by Constitutional scholar Professor POTUS Obama JD.
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 13:15
Please site the legal justification for their obtaining work permits.
Back peddling? I never questioned the non enforcement of deportation law, only the legality of work permits.
And where is the E.O. that was signed?
It would answer a lot of questions.
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 17:05
You are asking what the legality is for H1-B, etc Visa work permits that have been in use for decades!
A Green Card is granted to “lawful permanent residents” who maybe working in the USA, Or are in process to become Naturalized U.S. Citizens.
Any U.S. Citizen children must be supported, or these children will be orphaned into U.S. foster homes. Obama ‘Keeps families together’ Vs ‘Canadian Ted Cruz deportation solution for U.S. Citizens!’ What a hypocrite Jr. Senate asshole, having “3% Truth” Rating via “1” honest statement. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 14:09
As reported by abc news.
They will be granted a waiver in obtaining a green card.
Is this a change in the law?
And if it isn’t how far can a government official go before it is?
GREEN CARDS
Loosen eligibility requirements for a waiver program for people seeking green cards. People who entered the U.S. illegally must leave the country for as much as 10 years before getting in line for a green card unless they get a waiver.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/key-elements-obamas-actions-immigration-27074525
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 16:53
What’s the problem? These “Green Card” regulations are exactly as currently legislated into current law. IF someone was deported e.g. “left the country” then they maybe barred from USA re-entry for up to “10 years.”
You realize these are “Parents” of U.S. Citizens per the 14th Amendment? And that they must pass a Criminal Background check proving they’ve broken no laws? (Immigration violations are “infractions” like your speeding tickets.)
Via your ABC AP Link: “PARENTS Protect from deportation and make eligible for work permits approximately 4.1 million people who are in the U.S. illegally but whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, regardless of whether the children are minors. To be eligible, the parents must have lived in the U.S. for five years. After passing background checks and paying fees, parents would be granted relief from deportation for three years at a time.”
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 17:22
Yes they are citizens. But what is the legal justification for the change in law to permit the chain migration. If it is using the Reagan and Jorge Bush EO’s those were to cover relatives of those covered by the Simpson Mazzoli bill in 1986. None of these people were odds are here for that bills enactment. Those that were here at the time of it’s passage are here legally, but it cannot be used retroactively for those who came later.
.
We may just have to agree to disagree on this and let the courts shake it all out.
Obewon November 24th, 2014 at 17:36
What “change in law”? You keep striking out:
-4) Immigration statute empowers the president to deploy a specific tool — known as “deferred action” — to shield people from deportations, and courts have recognized executive authority to apply it to whole categories of people.
tracey marie November 24th, 2014 at 10:17
how is what legal, he did NOT give amnesty, period.
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 10:38
No, not an amnesty just a promise of no deportation, although it is a very broad interpretation of prosecutorial discretion, that is technically legal. However if as it looks they are going to be allowed to access the tax system with it’s benefits, and obtain green cards, those could only be done by changing present law.
tracey marie November 24th, 2014 at 10:55
nope, once again you prove you do not understand or know exactlly what he did.
amongoose November 24th, 2014 at 11:03
So exactly what did he do?
I can’t find the EO posted on the white house website.
Will they get work permits?
Will they be eligible for the EITC?
Tim Coolio November 29th, 2014 at 20:29
Good job Obama with immigration, he acted in the
best humanitarian interests of people who stood
to suffer real harm thanks to republicans persistent
and irrational refusal to act on this issue!
Tim Coolio November 29th, 2014 at 21:29
Good job Obama with immigration, he acted in the
best humanitarian interests of people who stood
to suffer real harm thanks to republicans persistent
and irrational refusal to act on this issue.