It gives me hope seeing some red pilled Americans get a lot of support on this obviously left leaning site. Not that there is anything wrong with techies being left leaning. Its just nice to see some representation and its proof that there are more of us than the fake news would have you believe. Trump 2020
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Says 250 Apple Employees Are 'Dreamers' as Donald Trump's Decision on DACA Nears
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In a nation ruled by laws, you would think that you would have to actually do something to break the law in order to be have your actions be considered illegal.
To quote Posner
"An extremely important, even a defining, element of the judicial protocol is what Aristotle called corrective justice. That means judging the case rather than the parties, 2 1 an aspiration given symbolic expression in statues of justice as a blindfolded goddess and in the judicial oath requiring judges to make decisions without respect to persons. It is also the essential meaning of the "rule of law." It means abstracting from the particular characteristics of the litigants - their personal attractiveness, their standing in the community, their wealth or poverty, their political affiliation, their race, sex, ethnicity, and so forth - and seeing them rather as representatives of abstract positions or interests: the careless victim, the reckless driver, the copier of copyrighted work, and so forth. " --[Posner 2006]
A domain specific notion of the "rule of law", to be sure. But inside the courtroom, it matters a great deal. Outside the courtroom, it's a more abstract notion, that the government both exercises its powers by writing laws of general applicability rather than by attainting specific persons and is, perhaps more importantly, formally bound by laws itself.
You argued that
There are states which do not consider themselves bound by either "the rule of law" or even the notion of "rule by law". A person, in such a state who advocates against the ruling authorities (or against the very concept of hierarchical authorities) might very find themselves the target of State violence,
One could more accurately argue
or even
It's not enough that the government uses formal legal rituals to exercise its powers. It's that in some sense that government is constrained by the laws, and not merely political expediency. To kill a man, the government must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the man has violated some law (defining a particular capital crime) that was conceived before the alleged crime took place. Even if the government is convinced of the man's dangerous nature, it cannot act outside the framework of laws, and it wold probably expose itself to legal liability were it to act outside the law.
The notion that certain individuals constitute a criminal class ("illegals") without legal rights, and should be locked up forthwith is a particular affront to the rule of law.
Huh? They's not legal but they're legal. Which is it?
Please cite the law which imparts legal status on them.
Correct. It's not hard. The executive branch needs to stick to its constitutionally mandated authority, which in this case is pretty clear.
We must get rid of the moronic orange nazi squatting the Whitehouse. This person is a national embarrassment and international bad joke.
Strange. Just a few months ago, Republicans were arguing that the President has inherent executive authority on all immigration issues under Article II of the Constitution.
You actually said that?
By act they are illegal aliens who came into this country illegally. Method makes no difference.
Now where in this are they not illegal?
Playing that game?
Immigrating into vs. already here.
[doublepost=1504631617][/doublepost]
Photoshopped but nicely done.
No, they were children who were brought into this country illegally. The "C" in DACA stands for "Childhood"?You actually said that?
By act they are illegal aliens who came into this country illegally. Method makes no difference.
Now where in this are they not illegal?
Now you're being disingenuous. When I say it's not 'legal' I am referring to the posture of the post I was responding to. Executive Orders are legal until they can entirely rescinded but this one hasn't and you know it hasn't. Please spare me the attempt to cite law as it is a silly response to the E.O. text.
I'd trust Obama's legal view of something long before your view, but thanks for playing.
No game. It's all immigration.Playing that game?
Immigrating into vs. already here.
Under current US Statute -- entering the United States outside the established immigration process is a crime. Its akin to breaking and entering. Non-US Citizens don't have an inherent right to enter the US at will. The American Government determines eligibility in accordance with our law and the interests of the American citizenry.
What part of that don't you understand. I get that's how you "feel" but feelings don't matter in this scenario.
[doublepost=1504632439][/doublepost]
No, they were children who were brought into this country illegally. The "C" in DACA stands for "Childhood"?
Yes and it is irrelevant that they were children when they got here. They are illegal aliens under the law.
No, they were children who were brought into this country illegally. The "C" in DACA stands for "Childhood"?
Method of travel does not apply. They came into the US as illegal aliens.
This is about the legality of the original EO. Get Congress to get off their collective asses and address this.
Oh the Nazi term again. Proves again people making comments like this don't know what the Nazi's were.
[doublepost=1504632758][/doublepost]
Here is where you argument falls apart (although some of your cut and paste constituties mental masturbation to no effect) --- No one said they have no rights. As illegal aliens (as defined law) --- they get a immigration judicial review. Once the fact that they are in the country illegally they are out processed and returned to their country of origin. Ergo they get due process which is inline with out Constitution. Those are their rights -- however, they do not have the right to demand entry into the US and demand and rights of citizens.
That is perfectly in line with the rule of law. And its a law and practice done by every single country on the planet -- your fantasy legal world not withstanding.
No - it was not legal when Obama did it - Trump has rescinded it and told Congress to get it sorted out early this morning.
You can always trust the Daily Mail to be on the vanguard of idiocy.
Or hey -- apply for a work visa and come in the right way. You can dream here just do it legally and don't make the same mistakes and poor choices your parents made.
No it isn't.
The President has powers to control incoming immigration except where those violate already existing laws passed by Congress..
Congress has passed rules stating what applies to those who have immigrated and how they become naturalized.
An Executive Order cannot change laws already passed. It can only enhance the execution of it.
No, not being disingenuous. You wrote an unclear statement and I sought clarification.
I was referring to the individuals immigration status. DACA or no, they remain illegal immigrants not possessing legal immigration status.
I prefer to develop my own view of matters by understanding the laws and reading various legal views instead of just following one person's view. Particularly when that individual has a vested interest in that view and has been shown to be a liar on multiple occasions.
That's certainly an argument that doesn't account for the reality that they are children whom no court would hold responsible for these actions.
Which you claim without evidence. They came in undocumented. But, as children, they did nothing illegal.
I like how you added "incoming" without any reason or basis. And then posted a quote that supports my argument.
If what you say is true (and it isn't) ---- The why do we need DACA?
[doublepost=1504634169][/doublepost]
Now now.... don't let logic, legal fact, and objective reasoning to interrupt a good left wing emotional temper tantrum.
Please sir!
Because there is no current path to naturalization for these children. Congress won't address a simple, common-sense situation because they are afraid that someone might take advantage of it.
