Jump to content
Disagree all you like, you're the one who said, “I don't trust anything our government does.”
If you had read the memo, you might realize that there is no disagreement. Of course, that was a government memo and not to be trusted.
You're beef is with the president using the authority of his office. Your "evaluation" of a policy change.
Well, the new boss is the same as the old boss and the next boss will be the same as the current boss, no matter which corrupt political party they come from. A plutocratic corporatist and the top executive with what you might consider to be dictatorial powers. The system insures it.
Live with it, leave it or change it if you can. Good luck.
Maybe we'll get another Reagan type amnesty from one or the other.
Romney won't say he'll overturn immigration order
The Republican presidential candidate was asked several times in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" whether he would overturn the executive order issued Friday if he's elected in the fall. He refused to directly answer.
"It would be overtaken by events," Romney said when pressed for the second time by moderator Bob Schieffer during the interview taped Saturday while the former Massachusetts governor's bus tour stopped in Pennsylvania.
He explained the order would become irrelevant "by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution, with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be, not just for the term of a president but on a permanent basis."
"Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration"
Since 2009, the annual average number of deportations has approached 400,000, according to the Department of Homeland Security. That’s double the annual average during President George W. Bush’s first term and 30 percent higher than the average when he left office.
DHS is a cabinet department of the United States federal government, not a "military force," not a "law enforcement agency."
NOTHING HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET. NO NEW LAWS EXIST. This is only an announcement of what they plan to do in the future.
What the policy is:
Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice officials will:
Review all cases pending before the immigration courts. “Low priority” cases may be administratively closed. “High priority” will be prosecuted more aggressively.
No rules or regulations exist that certain cases will be considered “low” or “high” priority.
In the future, review cases before immigration court proceedings are started. “Low priority” cases may not be referred to the court.
Issue new rules or guidance on cases for people who have a final order of removal/deportation.
The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion
:•came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
•has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
•is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
•has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety;and
•is not above the age of thirty.
"I don't trust anything our government does."
Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate.
In 1992, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas signed the NAFTA Treaty. That did not make it law.
And to answer your questions about my background, military and law enforcement. At a time when habeas corpus was considered a basic right and waterboarding torture. When both enemy soldiers and our own soldiers were prosecuted for it as were U.S. law enforcement officials prosecuted for torture because they waterboarded U.S. citizens in their custody.
That all changed, not by law, but by legal interpretation, by memo.
Edit: U.S. citizens have been (incarcerated) and are still at risk of being held without the centuries old legal principle of habeas corpus as a right.
This all might be "nit picky" but can have grave consequences when interpreted by the powers that be. As exemplified by what U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales publicly stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that."
(It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.)
U.S. citizens have been and are still at risk of being held without the centuries old legal principle of habeas corpus as a right.
Last login: Saturday, August 24, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.