PDA

View Full Version : New from OBAMATRON PRODUCTS INC ...



LWW
04-03-2012, 11:23 AM
Do away with pesky illegal aliens by declaring to simply be unlawfully present and then grant them an "UNLAWFULLY PRESENT WAIVER."*

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.”</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/03/obama-granting-illegal-aliens-unlawful-presence-waivers-to-halt-deportations/)

* Not to be confused with amnesty.

llotter
04-03-2012, 11:37 AM
The entire administration seems hell bent on transforming America, eliminating our liberty and making way for his dictatorship... like Putin

Soflasnapper
04-03-2012, 12:46 PM
This is proposed rule-making by an governmental bureau, for which there is no top-down administration involvement evidence except frantic hand-waving by Obama derangement syndrome parties. If you are suggesting this is a WH/Oval Office initiative, you have no evidence of that being true, and it isn't how the agencies and departments work. Rule-making is internal to the agency or department, and isn't imposed from above.

Frankly, it's obvious that considering the large numbers here, it would be wise and far more efficient to concentrate on deporting violent offenders, and also wise and efficient (not to mention humane treatment of relatives of US citizens) to do this proposed change in their status as well.

LWW
04-03-2012, 01:30 PM
Your abilities for self delusion are closing in on the snoop's.

This comes staright from the Department of Homeland Security (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/02/2012-7698/provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers-of-inadmissibility-for-certain-immediate-relatives) ... which just so happens to be a cabinet level department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet) ... and was personally selected by Barack Hussein Obama II and confirmed by a demokrook controlled congress.

Next totally lame deflection, denial and or defense of the regime?

Soflasnapper
04-03-2012, 04:06 PM
The DHS is doing rule-making, which involves the agency-style rule-making process.

They publish it in the Federal Registry, and keep it an open item for a statutory amount of time for comments from the public and other concerned parties, prior to any final decision taking place.

Show me one other POTUS who has directed any rule-making process, as to the rule(s) proposed, or that it should be done, and explain how that all would go.

Do you claim the POTUS has his chief of staff ring up the Secretary of DHS and order this, or what, exactly?

From the DHS site, on rulemaking:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Rulemaking 101
</span>

DHS mission is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.

In many cases, DHS carries out its mission through the promulgation of regulatory actions. The DHS regulatory agenda includes regulations issued by DHS components, including the following six operational components with regulatory responsibilities:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

In addition, the DHS regulatory agenda include regulations from the Department's major offices and directorates such as the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD).

DHS is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American public.
Legal Authorities

The following legal authorities provide some of the major requirements for the federal rulemaking process:

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C §551 et seq. governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §601 et seq. requires federal agencies, when developing proposed and final regulations, to consider the impact of regulations on small entities.
Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (PDF - 3 pages. 144 KB) direct federal agencies to follow certain principles in rulemaking, such as the consideration of alternatives and careful analysis of benefits and costs, and describes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ role in the federal rulemaking process.

</div></div>

LWW
04-04-2012, 03:55 AM
So your argument is that the rule didn't come from the regime because it came from the regime?

How novel.

Soflasnapper
04-04-2012, 10:09 AM
I'm saying this administration, like all administrations, lets their rule-making processes run on the discretion of the appointees responsible, and do not enforce top-down orders from the Oval Office. That is the relatively diffuse nature of the executive branch which has frustrated presidents from both parties, who are more used to thinking in terms of a CEO's plenary power over his subordinates, and instead find the president's actual powers to be underwhelming as to directing the executive branch to do specific things.

When on the rare occasion a president attempts to interfere in such processes, it is considered an abuse of power, and over-reach.

Considering the general opinion of Obama detractors that he is an abuser of power and a dictator, perhaps you assume that's the case here?

Well, ok, fine, it's possible that's true, and if so, get Rep. Issa on the case to get that evidence, but which evidence it must be noted is not present at this point. Otherwise, your claims just beg the question.

eg8r
04-04-2012, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm saying this administration, like all administrations, lets their rule-making processes run on the discretion of the appointees responsible, and do not enforce top-down orders from the Oval Office.</div></div>I think what you are choosing to sweep under the rug is the fact that deals can be, and probably were, made in order to get appointed. Whether this is one of them, who knows.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-04-2012, 12:25 PM
Possible, I suppose, but if that had been the case, a most clumsy way to execute the plan.

Wait this long, then go to rule-making procedures that are dilatory and also provide for extensive pushback in the comment period? And open the opportunity for the mounting of a counter-attack against it?

Hard to think that was the plan.

We already had an example of how cabinet level officials get ahead of the POTUS, in Holder's assertion that all terrorist trials would be performed in the civil courts (not the administration's policy now, or then when he said it on his own initiative).

eg8r
04-04-2012, 01:39 PM
I think it would have been even more clumsy to run in there guns ablazing the first day on the job. Most people pick and choose the times they feel will work best.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-04-2012, 02:49 PM
There's been a lot of reporting about how the various departments and agencies have been at loggerheads with the WH or higher departmental officials.

That's because the lower officials have freedom to promulgate rulings and policies and rule-making processes quite apart from the politically oriented concerns of the WH.

Here, the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/health/policy/white-house-and-fda-at-odds-on-regulatory-issues.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all) explains some of the situations that have developed with the FDA.