Why not?

U.S. Code and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. This isn't a military-CINC like chain of command issue. In the civilian order there is no "direct order" capability as the Chief Executive. Neither the President, nor the White House in general have direct formal authority over agency heads and members unless dictated by congressional statute. Not the case here.

So who does Customs and Border Patrol take orders from?  The DHS secretary, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So he only wants to do what he actually campaigned on, and 60 million people voted for him to do?

Got it.

Ah, the old "everyone who voted for that candidate agreed with every word that candidate said" fallacy.  Haven't seen that one in a little while.

You're right on this one.  It's a lot more than the people that voted for him.

---

So he only wants to do what he actually campaigned on, and 60 million people voted for him to do?

Got it.

Ah, the old "everyone who voted for that candidate agreed with every word that candidate said" fallacy.  Haven't seen that one in a little while.

If you are implying that the majority of Americans want open borders, come back to this thread on November 4th, 2020 and let me know how that worked out.

---

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

Current policy doesn't resemble open borders.  Ask the people herded under overpasses if they think the borders are open.
This aspect is unpleasant, but lawful.  Detention while an asylum claim is adjucated is par for the course.
The president allegedly ordered CBP employees to stop letting asylum seekers cross, while letting documented people and goods continue to cross.  
Would that amount to an unlawful order?

The thing is, what is "asylum"?  People fleeing an abusive government (North Korea) or people fleeing poverty (Venezuela)?

Contrary to popular belief, the illegal aliens (immigrants) coming across the border are not here because they are fleeing a hostile government, they are here (allegedly) to live a better life.  It's not just maids or farm labor coming across the border.  The illegals coming through both ports of entry and by other means are not good.

This article will be dismissed by the usual liberals, but it does give a good picture of what/whom is coming across.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-...nde-valley

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

U.S. Code and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. This isn't a military-CINC like chain of command issue. In the civilian order there is no "direct order" capability as the Chief Executive. Neither the President, nor the White House in general have direct formal authority over agency heads and members unless dictated by congressional statute. Not the case here.

So who does Customs and Border Patrol take orders from?  The DHS secretary, right?

Not the President which is what you asked. Read the remainder of my post to intercept where you may be trying to go with this.

---

So who does Customs and Border Patrol take orders from?  The DHS secretary, right?

Not the President which is what you asked. Read the remainder of my post to intercept where you may be trying to go with this.

The DHS secretary is one of the executive officers listed under Article ii section 2, right?
What just happened to the DHS secretary?
Is this good?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not the President which is what you asked. Read the remainder of my post to intercept where you may be trying to go with this.

The DHS secretary is one of the executive officers listed under Article ii section 2, right?
What just happened to the DHS secretary?
Is this good?

She resigned because congress would not allow her to do her job. She was also being frivolously sued by left wing groups in an effort to undermine her and pressure her. Now she has these groups doxing and encouraging companies to boycott her future employment. Is this good? Would you hold on to the reigns with resistance at every corner knowing you will ultimately be the one blamed? The Dems didn't think she was experienced enough anyways so no harm no foul right? Yes, her understanding her limitations and being cognizant of the House's lack of legislative ability and moving on is a good thing in that sort of toxic environment.

Not sure what engineering certification you have but would you jump at a "order" from the president of the certification organization? Nah.

---

The DHS secretary is one of the executive officers listed under Article ii section 2, right?
What just happened to the DHS secretary?
Is this good?

She resigned because congress would not allow her to do her job. She was also being frivolously sued by left wing groups in an effort to undermine her and pressure her. Now she has these groups doxing and encouraging companies to boycott her future employment. Is this good? Would you hold on to the reigns with resistance at every corner knowing you will ultimately be the one blamed? The Dems didn't think she was experienced enough anyways so no harm no foul right? Yes, her understanding her limitations and being cognizant of the House's lack of legislative ability and moving on is a good thing in that sort of toxic environment.

Not sure what engineering certification you have but would you jump at a "order" from the president of the certification organization? Nah.

"Congress would not let her do her job."
Her job is to enforce the law that congress makes.
Do we need to review the Constitution?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.

On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.

On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

the liberals and some conservatives want the illegal immigrants to be normalized so that employers will have to pay them minimum wage above board.
it's only the very nihilistic, wealthy conservatives that want to continue being able to pay them at half price under the table.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.

On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

the liberals and some conservatives want the illegal immigrants to be normalized so that employers will have to pay them minimum wage above board.
it's only the very nihilistic, wealthy conservatives that want to continue being able to pay them at half price under the table.

LOL.  You know not what you speak.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

She resigned because congress would not allow her to do her job. She was also being frivolously sued by left wing groups in an effort to undermine her and pressure her. Now she has these groups doxing and encouraging companies to boycott her future employment. Is this good? Would you hold on to the reigns with resistance at every corner knowing you will ultimately be the one blamed? The Dems didn't think she was experienced enough anyways so no harm no foul right? Yes, her understanding her limitations and being cognizant of the House's lack of legislative ability and moving on is a good thing in that sort of toxic environment.

Not sure what engineering certification you have but would you jump at a "order" from the president of the certification organization? Nah.

"Congress would not let her do her job."
Her job is to enforce the law that congress makes.
Do we need to review the Constitution?

Please do. This is getting unnecessarily drawn out.

Lack of proper funding, people, barriers, infrastructure, and immigration reform. Yep, she sure had all the tools to do her job. Maybe congress (specifically House) can take time away from unicorn chasing to support U.S. departments and agencies with what they require at the advisement of heads of said offices.

---

the liberals and some conservatives want the illegal immigrants to be normalized so that employers will have to pay them minimum wage above board.
it's only the very nihilistic, wealthy conservatives that want to continue being able to pay them at half price under the table.

LOL.  You know not what you speak.

Which part is wrong?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"Congress would not let her do her job."
Her job is to enforce the law that congress makes.
Do we need to review the Constitution?

Please do. This is getting unnecessarily drawn out.

Lack of proper funding, people, barriers, infrastructure, and immigration reform. Yep, she sure had all the tools to do her job. Maybe congress (specifically House) can take time away from unicorn chasing to support U.S. departments and agencies with what they require at the advisement of heads of said offices.

I think you're losing the lede.
The President is her boss.  She's an Officer per the section of the Constitution you cited, but Trump is not her commander.  The law commands the DHS secretary.  But the President can demand reports and fire at will. so that gets us to the bottom of a little misdirection about the chain of command you offered.
The President issued orders she felt were unlawful.
She refused to pass them on.
Trump retaliated the only way the law allows, and is now looking for a new intermediary who will pass along his commands with less regard for the law.
Should Trump succeed in this, the men and women on the front lines will get these unlawful orders more directly.
And that's a big problem, if the orders were indeed unlawful.
Were they?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ah, the old "everyone who voted for that candidate agreed with every word that candidate said" fallacy.  Haven't seen that one in a little while.

If you are implying that the majority of Americans want open borders, come back to this thread on November 4th, 2020 and let me know how that worked out.

No one wants open borders.  Stop making up false dilemmas and false dichotomies

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If you are implying that the majority of Americans want open borders, come back to this thread on November 4th, 2020 and let me know how that worked out.

No one wants open borders.  Stop making up false dilemmas and false dichotomies

Wrong. As usual.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Current policy doesn't resemble open borders.  Ask the people herded under overpasses if they think the borders are open.
This aspect is unpleasant, but lawful.  Detention while an asylum claim is adjucated is par for the course.
The president allegedly ordered CBP employees to stop letting asylum seekers cross, while letting documented people and goods continue to cross.  
Would that amount to an unlawful order?

The thing is, what is "asylum"?  People fleeing an abusive government (North Korea) or people fleeing poverty (Venezuela)?

Contrary to popular belief, the illegal aliens (immigrants) coming across the border are not here because they are fleeing a hostile government, they are here (allegedly) to live a better life.  It's not just maids or farm labor coming across the border.  The illegals coming through both ports of entry and by other means are not good.

This article will be dismissed by the usual liberals, but it does give a good picture of what/whom is coming across.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-...nde-valley

"Asylum" is usually interpreted as a request to legally remain in the jurisdiction you've entered because you have a credible fear of great harm if you're returned to your home jurisdiction. If Mrs. Bender pulls out a shotgun and tells me that I've left dishes in the sink for the last time, I'd probably go to my neighbor's house and request asylum.

---

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.

On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

the liberals and some conservatives want the illegal immigrants to be normalized so that employers will have to pay them minimum wage above board.
it's only the very nihilistic, wealthy conservatives that want to continue being able to pay them at half price under the table.

Lol.  When those liberals had 60 votes the house and the white house how'd the whole legalization thing work out?  Lol

---

The thing is, what is "asylum"?  People fleeing an abusive government (North Korea) or people fleeing poverty (Venezuela)?

Contrary to popular belief, the illegal aliens (immigrants) coming across the border are not here because they are fleeing a hostile government, they are here (allegedly) to live a better life.  It's not just maids or farm labor coming across the border.  The illegals coming through both ports of entry and by other means are not good.

This article will be dismissed by the usual liberals, but it does give a good picture of what/whom is coming across.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-...nde-valley

"Asylum" is usually interpreted as a request to legally remain in the jurisdiction you've entered because you have a credible fear of great harm if you're returned to your home jurisdiction. If Mrs. Bender pulls out a shotgun and tells me that I've left dishes in the sink for the last time, I'd probably go to my neighbor's house and request asylum.

That scenario doesn't qualify.  It's state sponsored violence or oppression based on political or religious beliefs & you would knock on ur neighbors door not break in and hold his familyfamily hostage.

---

If you are implying that the majority of Americans want open borders, come back to this thread on November 4th, 2020 and let me know how that worked out.

No one wants open borders.  Stop making up false dilemmas and false dichotomies

ohostage.on track for 1 million apprehensions and that correlates to an estimated 2 million illegals that cross the border that didn't get caught.  Something has to be done about it.

---

the liberals and some conservatives want the illegal immigrants to be normalized so that employers will have to pay them minimum wage above board.
it's only the very nihilistic, wealthy conservatives that want to continue being able to pay them at half price under the table.

Lol.  When those liberals had 60 votes the house and the white house how'd the whole legalization thing work out?  Lol

That's a good point. It was a lower priority than getting the health care and the stimulus law through.
I suppose you could say this meant they were insincere and didn't really want to pass an immigration reform, and it wouldn't be the first time that members of Congress were insincere like that. But maybe they were sincere and they just ran out of time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol.  When those liberals had 60 votes the house and the white house how'd the whole legalization thing work out?  Lol

That's a good point. It was a lower priority than getting the health care and the stimulus law through.
I suppose you could say this meant they were insincere and didn't really want to pass an immigration reform, and it wouldn't be the first time that members of Congress were insincere like that. But maybe they were sincere and they just ran out of time.

No, that party has moved to the open borders position supported by their informal lceadership. You should really read more if you want to have an informed opinion instead of just assuming the way you do.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato