Obama orders amnesty for illegals.

[Teallaura]

John Yoo's criticism of Obama's immigration policy.

Ah, thanks.

[Ansgar Seraph]

"I'm not gonna do it but someone else might or I might change my mind therefore I'm not actually refusing to do it" - Doesn't wash. As of now there will not be any enforcement regarding that one select group. The law was not changed, only the enforcement status - what might happen later in no way mitigates the refusal to carry out the constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the United States.

You really think it matters - are you seriously trying to now argue that being in the country illegally isn't illegal? Or that the executive has no duty to enforce immigration laws?

He is enforcing immigration laws. But he also has the authority to decide how this particular law gets implemented and how to manage the deportation processing of some 11 million individuals. If it were the case that the USCIS was sitting around with nothing to do, I'd say that you have a valid case in criticizing the deportation deferment. However, the USCIS claims that, of those 11 million people, it can only process 400,000 cases per year. This is even after the budget for the department has steadily grown. So long as there are more people than can be processed, prioritization of cases is a legitimate enforcement measure. As I wrote earlier, if the courts prosecuted every person who broke the speed limit, they would have no time to prosecute murderers.

This authority to defer prosecution of some individuals so that other cases are prioritized was granted in 2003. All of a sudden, it's a constitutional overreach? Unless it can be shown exactly how Obama is abrogating his constitutional duties, I'm calling shenanigans. It might be bad policy or lousy politics (though I think it's good policy and better politics, myself), but trying to dress this up as unconstitutional just doesn't fly.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

Mitt Romney. NAELO Speech. 2012-06-21

“After three-and-a-half years of putting every issue from loan guarantees for his donors to Cash For Clunkers before immigration, now the president has been seized by an overwhelming need to do what he could have done on Day One.

© source where applicable

That's Mitt Romney, criticizing the president for trying to get his policy enacted as law by going through the proper legislative channels. All while repeatedly refusing to answer whether he would extend or terminate the policy as president.

[Darth Executor]

To clarify the definition of torture that you were using for the purpose of this discussion.

You didn't ask for a definition, you asked if the flu was torture. It was a red herring. Note that you did not actually interact with it once you got your answer, nor did any of your partners in crime. You all just brushed it aside as "oh, if you think that then there's no point in talking blah blah blah" which shows you did not ask in good faith, you asked it so you can find an easy out and save face. Fortunately, it looks like you're not disciplined enough to stick to the plan because you got suckered right back in.

The fact that you unequivocally agreed that the flu was torture when the subject is torture as a moral act means that you are obscuring the question, deliberately or not.

You didn't ask me if the flu was torture as a moral act. You asked me if the flu was torture for the purpose of making it look like my definition of torture was invalid. In other words, it was an intentional bad faith question intended to distract. There was no need to ask the question at all since it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand whether I consider the flu torture or not.

As for the U.N. Declaration, that's the definition of torture that is agreed upon by the international community for the purposes of the enforcement of international law. That is the definition of torture that people of relevant (i.e. political) authority have agreed to be the morally relevant definition. If you think that incidental pain should be understood morally in the same way as deliberately inflicted pain, then you're the only one.

Actually the definition says nothing about morality, but even if it did it would just be an argument from authority and a logical fallacy. I find the UN morally useless at best and utterly reprehensible at worst.

Never mind that imprisonment is not incidental pain anymore than waterboarding is. In both cases the pain is inflicted with full knowledge and intent that the pain will cause the target to behave in a certain manner. IE: waterboarding is done with the intent to make a target provide information. Imprisonment is done to prevent the target from acting freely. The inflicted discomfort (terror and constriction respectively) are not incidental, they are the means by which the target goal is achieved.

Tell me: have you ever heard of the principle of double effect?

Yes.

Imprisonment: Intent is to, among other things, prevent target from being a threat to society. This is done via constriction. Under the principle of double effect this is incidental because the intent is not to cause pain, but rather to protect people from the criminal.

"Waterboarding" aka torture of a particular type: Intent is to, among other things, extract information to neutralize potential threats to innocent people. This is done via artificially induced terror of drowning. Under the principle of double effect this is also incidental because the pain inflicted on the target is not the intended effect, the extraction of information is.

Which brings us, again, to my point that the two are morally analogous because in both cases pain is deliberately inflicted on individuals for the achievement of a greater good.

[Darth Executor]

Mitt Romney. NAELO Speech. 2012-06-21

“After three-and-a-half years of putting every issue from loan guarantees for his donors to Cash For Clunkers before immigration, now the president has been seized by an overwhelming need to do what he could have done on Day One.

© source where applicable

That's Mitt Romney, criticizing the president for trying to get his policy enacted as law by going through the proper legislative channels.

Which is why Obama does this now, when the proper legislative channels were working on it and, as this wise Ansgar Seraph fella who posted earlier in this thread said, "steals any merit that Rubio might have won with "DREAM-lite"".

[JimL]

Which is why Obama does this now, when the proper legislative channels were working on it and, as this wise Ansgar Seraph fella who posted earlier in this thread said, "steals any merit that Rubio might have won with "DREAM-lite"".

When the democrats had the majority in the house and senate, the house passed the dream act. The minority in the senate had their chance, but what did they do, they blocked it by filibuster. Who's playing politics? Obama, as usual, just outsmarted the jerks who now, for strictly political reasons wanted to take credit for what they previously rejected on supposed principle.

[Teallaura]

He is enforcing immigration laws. But he also has the authority to decide how this particular law gets implemented and how to manage the deportation processing of some 11 million individuals. If it were the case that the USCIS was sitting around with nothing to do, I'd say that you have a valid case in criticizing the deportation deferment. However, the USCIS claims that, of those 11 million people, it can only process 400,000 cases per year. This is even after the budget for the department has steadily grown. So long as there are more people than can be processed, prioritization of cases is a legitimate enforcement measure. As I wrote earlier, if the courts prosecuted every person who broke the speed limit, they would have no time to prosecute murderers.

This authority to defer prosecution of some individuals so that other cases are prioritized was granted in 2003. All of a sudden, it's a constitutional overreach? Unless it can be shown exactly how Obama is abrogating his constitutional duties, I'm calling shenanigans. It might be bad policy or lousy politics (though I think it's good policy and better politics, myself), but trying to dress this up as unconstitutional just doesn't fly.

—Sam

There's a big difference between 'deferment' (which has it's own problems outside our scope) and giving an order not to deport a particular group of people who are in the country illegally. A is not B no matter how hard you try to make them the same. the president may have implementation discretion to a degree but not to the point where he stops enforcing valid laws. Once he stopped any enforcement it crossed the line.

[Thersites]

There's a big difference between 'deferment' (which has it's own problems outside our scope) and giving an order not to deport a particular group of people who are in the country illegally. A is not B no matter how hard you try to make them the same. the president may have implementation discretion to a degree but not to the point where he stops enforcing valid laws. Once he stopped any enforcement it crossed the line.

The same number of people are being deported, either way.

[Jaecp]

There's a big difference between 'deferment' (which has it's own problems outside our scope) and giving an order not to deport a particular group of people who are in the country illegally. A is not B no matter how hard you try to make them the same. the president may have implementation discretion to a degree but not to the point where he stops enforcing valid laws. Once he stopped any enforcement it crossed the line.

The same number of people are being deported, either way.

Teal,

Maybe it would help if we phrased it in opposite terms that end up amounting to the same practical effect.

Obama has given an order that the 400,000 deportations we are able to do each year, of the ~15 million illegal immigrants, go to the people who have done the most to break American law, who have commited greater crimes against us.

When looked at like this, does it not make sense to put more focus on the people who chose to come here as adults than the people who were dragged here as children?

[Darth Executor]

When the democrats had the majority in the house and senate, the house passed the dream act. The minority in the senate had their chance, but what did they do, they blocked it by filibuster.

The republicans didn't want the DREAM act, which is why they filibustered it. At which point Obama, who cares greatly about these people, issued the executive order. Oh wait, he didn't, he waited until it was closer to the election so he could profit from it while the people he pretends to care about so much had to live with the continued fear of deportation.

Who's playing politics? Obama

Should've stopped there.

[JimL]

The republicans didn't want the DREAM act, which is why they filibustered it. At which point Obama, who cares greatly about these people, issued the executive order. Oh wait, he didn't, he waited until it was closer to the election so he could profit from it while the people he pretends to care about so much had to live with the continued fear of deportation.

Thats right, they didn't want it then, but all of a sudden they want it now. Pure politics. The President did want it then, and would have signed it had it reached his desk, but thanks to the phoney's who all of a sudden are all for it, after they were against it, it never reached he's desk. Is it Politics on Obamas behalf to enact it now? You bet it is. The action is both principled and politics on his behalf. Your just upset Darthy because Obama once again exposed republicans for the hypocritical fools that they are.

[Darth Executor]

Thats right, they didn't want it then, but all of a sudden they want it now.

They don't want it now either. Rubio wants it, and could have likely peeled off enough Republican support to get it passed. Your knowledge of this issue, like your knowledge of everything else is virtually non-existent. If you had any sense you'd cancel your Internet subscription and stick to leisurely activities better suited for one of your humble mental capacity, like a staring off into space for half an hour stunt double for artsy indie movies.

You bet it is. The action is both principled and politics on his behalf.

No, it cannot be both. Principled action would have required him to do it right away for the reason that I explained already.

[JimL]

They don't want it now either. Rubio wants it, and could have likely peeled off enough Republican support to get it passed. Your knowledge of this issue, like your knowledge of everything else is virtually non-existent. If you had any sense you'd cancel your Internet subscription and stick to leisurely activities better suited for one of your humble mental capacity, like a staring off into space for half an hour stunt double for artsy indie movies.

Of course they don't really want it now either, thats why I called it for what it is, i.e. pure politics. The difference is that the democrats and the president do want it and have tried to pass it when they had the majority, but were unable to get it through the obstructionist party in congress.
Now that the republicans see that its passage might help them politically they are all for passing it, except they are to late as the president beat them to the punch once again. You know Darthy, for such a smart mouthed guy, you sure do come off as a bit of an ignoramus.

No, it cannot be both. Principled action would have required him to do it right away for the reason that I explained already.

And as I have pointed out they did try do do it a long time ago, on principle, but were stopped by the unprincipled right. Checkmate, you lose, run along now.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Obama didn't beat Republicans to the legislation. If there was a real drive for Republicans — even some Republicans — to get legislation passed, they could still do it. If the only thing stopping 'em is that Obama stole a bit of their thunder, that just showcases the complete contrariness and myopic vision of today's GOP.

If they were smarter, they would try and push DREAM-lite through the House and dare the Democratic senators to settle for something less than what they want.

—Sam

[JimL]

Obama didn't beat Republicans to the legislation. If there was a real drive for Republicans — even some Republicans — to get legislation passed, they could still do it. If the only thing stopping 'em is that Obama stole a bit of their thunder, that just showcases the complete contrariness and myopic vision of today's GOP.

If they were smarter, they would try and push DREAM-lite through the House and dare the Democratic senators to settle for something less than what they want.

—Sam

Exellent point, as usual Ansgar. But isn't Rubio's plan very similar to the one the president enacted and therefore, superfluous? I don't think it would do much if anything for them now politically anyway, which of course was their only motive for its enactment anyway.