Rally to save DACA kids

In other words A News Source with Fact Checkers, not a Propaganda Rag founded for the sole purpose of spewing lies and distortions, which is the Daily Caller's calling card.

On what planet are the NY Times and Washington Post unbiased? Are you feeling well today or do you have amnesia? Their "fact checkers" must have been drugged or on vacation throughout the election - maybe they employ the same people that Mother Jones do.

Those lovely left wing/Sanctuary cities you named have other publications too - why are we excluding those? NY Post and maybe Washington Examiner for example - do they not employ fact-checkers or they don't spew enough left-wing lies and distortions for you?

This list will have to be a work in progress it seems. Your delusions were entertaining though.

Do you even know what journalism is?

By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 7:14pm

Journalistic integrity?
Fact checking?
Logic?
Reality?
Scientific Evidence?

Obviously not.

I do...

By Doug1001
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 8:18pm

That's why I ridiculed the selections of NY Times and Washington Post as unbiased.

Did they teach civics at your high school?

By Waquiot
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:20pm

Congress makes the laws. The President enforces them. Congress said no to legal residency. Even the esteemed law professor who occupied the Oval Office last year would see the writing on the wall when states start suing over the President making law by decree.

At least the guy before him tried via the constitutional route. Perhaps our President now can get Congress to do their jobs.

Did they teach law at your law school?

By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 7:31pm

Explain.

High school is only the start of understanding things like this. There is much gray area in the world beyond School House Rock, which is why we are hearing differing opinions on this from different lawyers, such as yourself.

I'm glad I was raised in New England

By Waquiot
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 8:43pm

Because people from the Pacific Northwest sure don't understand separation of powers.

Article 1 of the US Constitution gave Congress power to create laws.

Article 2 of the US Constitution gave the Presidency power to execute the law.

Article 3 of the US Constitution created a judiciary, which evolved to have the power to adjudicate the Constitutionality of laws and actions of the Presidency.

The idea was to prevent concentration of power in a single branch. My guy is that it would have been tough even for a HRC Presidency to explain the flouting of immigration law via executive orders in the face of the impending lawsuits. Trump is pushing the issue. I do hope that the DACA folk can get some kind of permanent residency, but that takes an act of Congress, not the action of a President.

Or are you contending that a President can alter immigration law through Executive Orders.

Don't know where you went to high school

By SG not logged in
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 10:16am

We learned a whole lot that went way beyond your recitation of poems.

My public high school taught us in college prep level courses that written laws required interpretation to be operationalized - this is known as judicial review.

We also learned, through studying the Nixon fiasco, what the working limits on executive privilege are and how executive privilege emerged through the years and how it was tempered NOT by reciting words on a piece of paper at complicated situations but through the JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of those words on that paper.

We also learned that the real world wasn't so neat, cut and dried as what was written (see judicial interpretation, review, precedent, executive privilege), and that the world was much bigger than the walls of our school, parish, or neighborhood; and that we needed to be ready for the grownup messiness of things in order to be grownups, not kids reciting words that need interpretation in the real messy grown up world of real life.

Thanks for agreeing with me

By Waquiot
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:40am

So at least you and I are on the same page with the separation of powers.

Please explain

By anon
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 1:38pm

Do you know what judicial review and interpretation are or not?

Explain using Nixon and FDR as examples.

Wait

By Waquiot
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 9:12pm

Are you really asking for an example of judicial review of FDR's actions. Where to start? The NRA? Internment of Japanese Americans? Jeez, imagine if Trump's response to Supreme Court decisions was like what Trump did with the New Deal- declare my actions constitutional or I'll start appointing more justices until I get a majority.

Funny I remember Trump saying

By John
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 8:05pm

Funny I remember Trump saying the President has great leeway in regards to enforcing immigration laws. I think Obama had the same leeway. Trump was brought to court and lost.Why didn't anybody bring DACA to court?

Good job playing Trump's chess game

By Waquiot
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 9:44pm

Some have spent the past 8 months going on about overreach on the part of the President in regards to immigration. States have sued the federal government about executive overreach using executive orders. Now the tables suddenly have turned. Often Trump looks like an idiot, but then somehow things turn like they have now.

Ain't it strange

By bgl
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 8:46pm

That these states waited five years, and for Obama to be out of office to sue? Given that no court ruled against it, it wasn't unconstitutional, and, given Texas et co only sued when they had their guy in the White House, I don't see that as any measure of its constitutionality - in fact, if it was unconstitutional, they would have sued years ago when Obama was still in office. This is just political theater, as the states know that Trump does not want to be forced to defend it in any way.

Have any states actually

By bibliotequetress
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:32am

Have any states actually gotten to court yet? If not, shouldn't the Supes be the deciders here?

Adam, I assume your are in favor of the Affordable Care Act

By Westie
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 7:13pm

Or the Americans with Disabilities Act...

Or the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

If I have my history and civics correct, none of those were overturned by the following hostile executive with a mere signature.

There's a reason for that.

I'll say it again. Obama was lazy and went for the easy swerve on this. Sorry if passing laws and working within the framework layed down by the founders is hard.

Obama owns this as much as Trump.

Key difference

By adamg
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 9:28pm

Back in the day, Republicans were willing to negotiate with Democrats. That trend started to collapse when Clinton was president and then failed completely when the black guy occupied the White House (and yes, I say that deliberately). Obama's fault, if any, was that he entered the presidency believing in all the stuff he'd been teaching about how the system was supposed to work and it took him too long to realize the Republicans had moved to a different game, one they were able to do even in the first few years thanks to the "supermajority" stuff in the Senate.

why didn't the dems do this

By Patricia-can't ...
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 9:17am

why didn't the dems do this when they had the house and all?

It wasn't the house, it was the senate

By adamg
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 9:35am

Remember that supermajority crap that went out the window on Jan. 20? Yeah, that.

tell us more

By anon
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:18pm

about how pushing people for violations of the law their parents committed, that they were in no reasonable way responsible for, is "doing the right thing".

What a headline Buzzfeed

By anon
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 5:22pm

"Save" are they dying? "Kids" most are in their mid-20's.

for many of them

By anon
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 9:12pm

Getting sent back to certain places will be tantamount to death, so yes.

The D in DACA

By anon
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:13pm

What does it stand for?

Deferred

By Irma la Douce
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:32pm

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Deferred Action

By Anonymous
Thu, 09/07/2017 - 12:54am

The chief executive has the authority to set priorities for enforcing law like deportations. That was the basis for Obama executive order on DACA. It was clearly spelled out--the criteria for qualifying for deferred action.

The Constitutionality wasn't tested in court.

Trump repeal of the EO was instigated by AGs from red states who threatened to sue if Trump didn't repeal it. Neither McConnell nor Ryan wanted Trump to do it.

FYI

By lisar
Tue, 09/05/2017 - 11:11pm

The Facebook event says it's been rescheduled for 4-5pm.

Punishing children for the

By bibliotequetress
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:30am

Punishing children for the actions of their parents is some serious PaPa Doc-Mao-Stasi shit. It is what totalitarian dictators do to have leverage over their populace.

In the United States, if an adult robs banks, and brings the 5 year old son along in the getaway car, the son is not imprisoned when the crime is solved-- not if it's one year later and the child is 6, or twenty years later and the child is 25. Not even if the 5 year old is actively involved in the robbery, and told to hide money in his Spider Man backpack during the getaway.

If the money from the bank robbery is used to pay the child's college tuition, the child is not forced to return his diploma and give up his degree. Boats, vacation houses, sports cars may be seized, but the innocent family members are not forced to become destitute or punished for activity over which they had no control, even if they were fed and clothed as a result of that activity.

To pick up on something closer to home & more recent: when Bernie Madoff was finally busted, his wife was allowed to keep one of the homes, even though it was purchased with ill-gotten money, because she was not involved in his criminal activity, and would have been homeless without it. Even though she benefited materially during the time of his scamming, she was-- rightly-- not held responsible for his actions, nor was she punished.

If lawbreaking from yesterday is rewarded today

By Roman
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 10:09pm

there will be more of it tomorrow.

If you're OK with that, then you're OK with amnesty. If you believe national borders are there for (admittedly self-serving) good reasons, then you can't be OK with any form of amnesty.

While I sympathize with these people, I cannot empathize with them. Territorial integrity, the most basic form of national security, needs to rank higher than emotions. Otherwise we may as well not have borders, or government for that matter, if anyone can come here and act like they own the place with no respect to the people who are already here. The astute observer will note that this is process would be called invasion and conquest if it were us doing it to them.

we did do it to them

By anon
Thu, 09/07/2017 - 9:22am

in some cases, we did literally invade and remove territory. in others, we meddled so much - either directly through government agents or through corporate entities - that we permanently destabilized their socioeconomic system to the point that organized crime is more powerful than the government. it's not just "Mexico's problem" or "El Salvador's problem" its our problem too because we helped create it. And we keep making it worse.

There are no jobs, there is nothing, all the while we say "Murica is the best! everyone loves us! land of opportunity!" And yet when, out of desperation they come, we say NO NOT YOU. WHY DO THEY COME HERE. its illogical.

Amnesty is forgiving the transgressor. The kids werent the transgressors. This is not amnesty. This is taking a broader view of the issue, reconizing its roots and trying to do the right thing. I agree that large scale immigration reform is necessary, but no one gains anything by putting a bunch of American youths on planes to places they dont know where they run known and significant risks. Everyone who wants to end DACA says "well you cant run a country on emotions", but thats exactly what theyre doing, this is purely vindictive, out of nativist spite for people who didnt break the law.