Thread: Federal laws trump state laws

Congress has the authority to create and/or change federal laws. The President has the authority to pass or veto federal laws. The AG has the authority to enforce federal laws.
None of the three have the authority to proclaim someone guilty of an act prior to a court hearing, as the AG and President have done.
The president does not have the authority, without consent of Congress, to nullify existing laws, as the President and Secretary of Homeland Security has done.

The last time amnesty for illegal aliens happened at this level was in the mid 80s under President Reagan. The result was an influx of illegal border crossers that inundated our system and holding facilities. The result of that was the infamous "catch and release" system of the 90s. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was created and threw a lot of money to our border security. The result was that more holding facilities were created and a streamlined method of deportation was enacted. In the past year, the President has completely undone what was accomplished in the past thirty years.

Thebigspendur, I appreciate your 30 years enforcing the immigration code. I have only been doing it for 22 years and counting.

Originally Posted by BDRebel

Congress has the authority to create and/or change federal laws. The President has the authority to pass or veto federal laws. The AG has the authority to enforce federal laws.
None of the three have the authority to proclaim someone guilty of an act prior to a court hearing, as the AG and President have done.
The president does not have the authority, without consent of Congress, to nullify existing laws, as the President and Secretary of Homeland Security has done.

The last time amnesty for illegal aliens happened at this level was in the mid 80s under President Reagan. The result was an influx of illegal border crossers that inundated our system and holding facilities. The result of that was the infamous "catch and release" system of the 90s. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was created and threw a lot of money to our border security. The result was that more holding facilities were created and a streamlined method of deportation was enacted. In the past year, the President has completely undone what was accomplished in the past thirty years.

Thebigspendur, I appreciate your 30 years enforcing the immigration code. I have only been doing it for 22 years and counting.

I think we are two different wavelengths here.

Over the years the agency has used parole status and deferred action status and other silly made up terms to allow whole populations of folks to remain in the U.S in violation of law. Often times if you read the law and read the operating instructions written by the agency as instructions to the field you see wide discrepancies and then when you factor in the interpretations there is further departure. Since the agency is part of the executive you can easily say the President has ignored the law and done what he has wanted and that's correct but it has been done many times over the years. I honestly don't see this current brew ha but political posturing against the current President. How many folks are saved from deportation or granted permanent residence or made U.S citizens through private bills? yes it legal because Congress passes it but most of those folks are people ineligible for a variety of reasons who are getting status because they have a hook somewhere. Many are criminals and just rich people. People don't know about this because it's kept a secret.

When Reagan passed amnesty it was a disaster. We estimated that probably 75% of those using section 210 were out and out fraud and probably 50% of those using sec 245 were fraud.

I have no doubt the document vendors are already selling packets to folks to prove their residency and employment in the U.S and as before the agency wants to see as many approved applications as possible. They don't want to see the denials.

In the end I see no difference in numbers. If it's one persons allowed to stay here in violation or 100,000 the principle is the same.

I agree that there are way too many loopholes in the written law. I have found many examples within 8USC that demonstrate a congressman's maid or butler were written into the law as an exception. Additionally, parole of individuals that fit certain criteria is also written into the law. Although I do not necessarily agree with the law as written, the law was constitutionally passed or amended by the elected lawmakers. Additionally, I support (though not necessarily agree with) temporary protected status for a class of people due to natural disasters in their home country.

What I do disagree with, though, is the president legitimizing an entire class of people without taking individual circumstances into consideration. If he were to grant individual amnesty to each, after considering each case individually, and using his Presidential Pardon Powers, then I might be more accepting of the situation. Instead, he has stated that all persons residing in the US, and their foreign residing families, are now eligible for resident status, is in itself an illegal act -- he is nullifying an entire section of law without the consent of the Congress, which has the sole constitutional authority of making and changing laws (with oversight of the President and Supreme Court).

I do not say this against President Obama as a person, or as a Rep/Dem debate, but rather against a President who is overreaching is constitutional powers.

In my opinion, Congress needs to ensure that they maintain the constitution, check the Presidential overreach by either concurring with him or cancelling his order, and the Supreme Court ruling one way or the other.