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.

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

---

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

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.

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

Mike....  Come on man!

---

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?

No matter how many times you play the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, the President is not her boss. They are both part of the Executive branch. Think of it as an old school board of directors. Anyways, per the Constitution, he selects heads to support the varied departments and they can volunteer their service to the department. They are then either confirmed or rejected by the Senate. They are at-will advisors to the POTUS. At least you are comprehending one part...the Secretaries function in their capacity per the law bestowed by the legislative branch. The President doesn't demand reports, it is a written duty of the cabinet (you know, the ADVISORY body). If the POTUS was their boss, why Senate confirmation? Why function specific to law and not just wait until the POTUS tells them to jump? Test your understanding with this one question...What is Congressional Oversight?

Everything else you're throwing out there is your opinionated misunderstanding. There was no order lawful or otherwise. There can't be. Nielsen wasn't fired. There are no and will be no direct commands from the POTUS to front lines as you put it. I'm glad you used the term "front lines" though because that is a good military term that appears to describe this immigration event accurately. CBP officers have a duty to protect our borders and act in good faith regardless of what comes out of the Presidents mouth. They swore an oath...

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Those that have taken this oath and similar have the capacity to understand that they are not doing a job on behalf of any political figure. As a civilian, you may be blinded by their shiny, elitist positions but to these folks they are just figureheads. Members will lawfully function within their capacity as a service to the United States and Constitution, not some figure head. There is no such thing as brainless blind loyalty or subjugation in CBP, the military, or any other oath of service position. Hence, federal retribution and whistleblower protections.

Simple reiteration: No. There can be no direct legal or illegal orders given as the system of government does not support or allow.

---

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.

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

You some how interpret the POTUS gave orders to CBP officers through hopscotch of weird interpretation and opinion but you refuse to believe that the Dems are the party of open borders if not by actual direction but by actions such as sanctuary laws, illegal immigrant housing, drivers licenses, legal services, health care, education, illegal immigrant financial support, etc? Come on man!

---

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

You some how interpret the POTUS gave orders to CBP officers through hopscotch of weird interpretation and opinion but you refuse to believe that the Dems are the party of open borders if not by actual direction but by actions such as sanctuary laws, illegal immigrant housing, drivers licenses, legal services, health care, education, illegal immigrant financial support, etc? Come on man!

AND, one of the major Presidential candidates saying he wants to tear down the wall between El Paso and Mexico.

---

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

You some how interpret the POTUS gave orders to CBP officers through hopscotch of weird interpretation and opinion but you refuse to believe that the Dems are the party of open borders if not by actual direction but by actions such as sanctuary laws, illegal immigrant housing, drivers licenses, legal services, health care, education, illegal immigrant financial support, etc? Come on man!

Each of the actions you attribute to Democrats were taken at the state or local level.
State and local level can't change border policy or work visa policy.
Saying, "now that you're here and paying sales and property taxes, I will offer these services to you" is probably not wise, but it doesn't necessarily imply, "I wanted you to come and I want everyone to come."

---

You some how interpret the POTUS gave orders to CBP officers through hopscotch of weird interpretation and opinion but you refuse to believe that the Dems are the party of open borders if not by actual direction but by actions such as sanctuary laws, illegal immigrant housing, drivers licenses, legal services, health care, education, illegal immigrant financial support, etc? Come on man!

AND, one of the major Presidential candidates saying he wants to tear down the wall between El Paso and Mexico.

Tearing down a wall also doesn't necessarily translate to an open border policy.

---

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?

No matter how many times you play the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, the President is not her boss. They are both part of the Executive branch. Think of it as an old school board of directors. Anyways, per the Constitution, he selects heads to support the varied departments and they can volunteer their service to the department. They are then either confirmed or rejected by the Senate. They are at-will advisors to the POTUS. At least you are comprehending one part...the Secretaries function in their capacity per the law bestowed by the legislative branch. The President doesn't demand reports, it is a written duty of the cabinet (you know, the ADVISORY body). If the POTUS was their boss, why Senate confirmation? Why function specific to law and not just wait until the POTUS tells them to jump? Test your understanding with this one question...What is Congressional Oversight?

Everything else you're throwing out there is your opinionated misunderstanding. There was no order lawful or otherwise. There can't be. Nielsen wasn't fired. There are no and will be no direct commands from the POTUS to front lines as you put it. I'm glad you used the term "front lines" though because that is a good military term that appears to describe this immigration event accurately. CBP officers have a duty to protect our borders and act in good faith regardless of what comes out of the Presidents mouth. They swore an oath...

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Those that have taken this oath and similar have the capacity to understand that they are not doing a job on behalf of any political figure. As a civilian, you may be blinded by their shiny, elitist positions but to these folks they are just figureheads. Members will lawfully function within their capacity as a service to the United States and Constitution, not some figure head. There is no such thing as brainless blind loyalty or subjugation in CBP, the military, or any other oath of service position. Hence, federal retribution and whistleblower protections.

Simple reiteration: No. There can be no direct legal or illegal orders given as the system of government does not support or allow.

I think the gap in our understanding boils down to, I say Trump demanded the resignation, you say it was freely offered.
Let's leave that aside.
Does the President have the authority to fire the DHS secretary for any reason or no reason?

---

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

Did u just ask if the chief executive has executive authority?

---

Did u just ask if the chief executive has executive authority?

Yes, but I want to know B2hibry's answer.
I know the answer, as do you, but B2hibry doesn't seem to.

---

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

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.

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

Really? Because AOC, Tlaib, Beto O'Rourke and at least one or two others whose names I can't remember all favor something closely resembling the old Cuba policy: if you make it to dry land (over the fence, in this case), welcome home.

---

I read a lot and never once have I seen any actual elected official from any party saying that we should just let anybody who wants to come across and work, come across and work. That's something that people sometimes debate at libertarian think tanks and universities, but not in the halls of power.

Really? Because AOC, Tlaib, Beto O'Rourke and at least one or two others whose names I can't remember all favor something closely resembling the old Cuba policy: if you make it to dry land (over the fence, in this case), welcome home.

"We should focus on safe passage, not criminal detention." - AOC

---

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

You some how interpret the POTUS gave orders to CBP officers through hopscotch of weird interpretation and opinion but you refuse to believe that the Dems are the party of open borders if not by actual direction but by actions such as sanctuary laws, illegal immigrant housing, drivers licenses, legal services, health care, education, illegal immigrant financial support, etc? Come on man!

Each of the actions you attribute to Democrats were taken at the state or local level.
State and local level can't change border policy or work visa policy.
Saying, "now that you're here and paying sales and property taxes, I will offer these services to you" is probably not wise, but it doesn't necessarily imply, "I wanted you to come and I want everyone to come."

---

AND, one of the major Presidential candidates saying he wants to tear down the wall between El Paso and Mexico.

Tearing down a wall also doesn't necessarily translate to an open border policy.

---

No matter how many times you play the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, the President is not her boss. They are both part of the Executive branch. Think of it as an old school board of directors. Anyways, per the Constitution, he selects heads to support the varied departments and they can volunteer their service to the department. They are then either confirmed or rejected by the Senate. They are at-will advisors to the POTUS. At least you are comprehending one part...the Secretaries function in their capacity per the law bestowed by the legislative branch. The President doesn't demand reports, it is a written duty of the cabinet (you know, the ADVISORY body). If the POTUS was their boss, why Senate confirmation? Why function specific to law and not just wait until the POTUS tells them to jump? Test your understanding with this one question...What is Congressional Oversight?

Everything else you're throwing out there is your opinionated misunderstanding. There was no order lawful or otherwise. There can't be. Nielsen wasn't fired. There are no and will be no direct commands from the POTUS to front lines as you put it. I'm glad you used the term "front lines" though because that is a good military term that appears to describe this immigration event accurately. CBP officers have a duty to protect our borders and act in good faith regardless of what comes out of the Presidents mouth. They swore an oath...

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Those that have taken this oath and similar have the capacity to understand that they are not doing a job on behalf of any political figure. As a civilian, you may be blinded by their shiny, elitist positions but to these folks they are just figureheads. Members will lawfully function within their capacity as a service to the United States and Constitution, not some figure head. There is no such thing as brainless blind loyalty or subjugation in CBP, the military, or any other oath of service position. Hence, federal retribution and whistleblower protections.

Simple reiteration: No. There can be no direct legal or illegal orders given as the system of government does not support or allow.

I think the gap in our understanding boils down to, I say Trump demanded the resignation, you say it was freely offered.
Let's leave that aside.
Does the President have the authority to fire the DHS secretary for any reason or no reason?

Resignation letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/...index.html

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking. I will say again...the Secretary of DHS is an at-will employee. When applicable, this means they can be let go for both any reason or for no reasonat all. They may also be impeached (more of that pesky congressional oversight). In addition, they can walk at anytime. She was not hired nor was she fired by the POTUS. You seem to wrongly equate hiring and firing as boss specific. Not the case in government and nearly equally reflected in the business world.

---

Did u just ask if the chief executive has executive authority?

Yes, but I want to know B2hibry's answer.
I know the answer, as do you, but B2hibry doesn't seem to.

You've been flopping all over the place. Aparently you've lost track of what your arguement was. FYI...it is not and has never been the roles related to Executive Powers.

---

Each of the actions you attribute to Democrats were taken at the state or local level.
State and local level can't change border policy or work visa policy.
Saying, "now that you're here and paying sales and property taxes, I will offer these services to you" is probably not wise, but it doesn't necessarily imply, "I wanted you to come and I want everyone to come."

---

Tearing down a wall also doesn't necessarily translate to an open border policy.

---

I think the gap in our understanding boils down to, I say Trump demanded the resignation, you say it was freely offered.
Let's leave that aside.
Does the President have the authority to fire the DHS secretary for any reason or no reason?

Resignation letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/...index.html

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking. I will say again...the Secretary of DHS is an at-will employee. When applicable, this means they can be let go for both any reason or for no reasonat all. They may also be impeached (more of that pesky congressional oversight). In addition, they can walk at anytime. She was not hired nor was she fired by the POTUS. You seem to wrongly equate hiring and firing as boss specific. Not the case in government and nearly equally reflected in the business world.

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

---

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

Resignation letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/...index.html

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking. I will say again...the Secretary of DHS is an at-will employee. When applicable, this means they can be let go for both any reason or for no reasonat all. They may also be impeached (more of that pesky congressional oversight). In addition, they can walk at anytime. She was not hired nor was she fired by the POTUS. You seem to wrongly equate hiring and firing as boss specific. Not the case in government and nearly equally reflected in the business world.

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

Have u been paying attention to anything?  I mean literally ANYTHING?  

@ THE heart of this whole issue is something called the Flores settlement.  It's an unconstitutional act of judicial supremacy where some 9th circuit lunatic tried to enact policy that was never passed by Congress and limit the amount of time a minor can be detained by the state, and the libs extrapolated this to defacto mandate catch and release of family units and thus we've seen an unprecedented influx of family units @ the border.  

The president's position is, in the meantime, detain the adults release the children to relatives or other custodians and challenge the flores decision in the long run.  Nelson wasn't on board with the optics and PR of family separation so she's out.  As DHS SECRETARY her political function in the administration is to advocate publicly and implement practically the policies of the chief executive. If she couldn't do that then she's out.  

A.) I see u have no issue with clear judicial overreach ( long standing that the president basically has universal power to ban any class or group of migrant from the country that he sees fit, and that the judiciary subordinates decisions on national security to the branches that actually answer to voters and, I don't know, actually get security briefings.)

B.) The whirlwind misdirection that any dismissal of a cabinet official is because they were the lone voice of reason against the mad tyrant is both childish and asinine.  Jeff sessions got pushed into a refusal by a comedian from Minnesota.  As a result, 30 million dollars 2 years and people's lives were wasted to grill the biggest nothing burger this side of Wisconsin.  

Never trumped derangement syndrome might be the more virulent of the two strands.

---

Resignation letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/...index.html

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking. I will say again...the Secretary of DHS is an at-will employee. When applicable, this means they can be let go for both any reason or for no reasonat all. They may also be impeached (more of that pesky congressional oversight). In addition, they can walk at anytime. She was not hired nor was she fired by the POTUS. You seem to wrongly equate hiring and firing as boss specific. Not the case in government and nearly equally reflected in the business world.

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

What in the crusty [BLEEP]! I can't anymore because now I think you're just trolling.

---

Resignation letter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/...index.html

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking. I will say again...the Secretary of DHS is an at-will employee. When applicable, this means they can be let go for both any reason or for no reasonat all. They may also be impeached (more of that pesky congressional oversight). In addition, they can walk at anytime. She was not hired nor was she fired by the POTUS. You seem to wrongly equate hiring and firing as boss specific. Not the case in government and nearly equally reflected in the business world.

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

Regarding the part in bold.  You are just doing what far left liberals do.  Say something false enough times so that people believe it.  No facts, nothing to substantiate the claim.  It just (in your mind) "most likely" happened so it must be true.

---

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

Really? Because AOC, Tlaib, Beto O'Rourke and at least one or two others whose names I can't remember all favor something closely resembling the old Cuba policy: if you make it to dry land (over the fence, in this case), welcome home.

"We should focus on safe passage, not criminal detention." - AOC

I believe in safe passage, too. Safe passage to a facility where your plea for asylum will be heard by a judge, then safe passage either to another facility to await a full hearing or safe passage to a bus that will safely pass you back into the country you came in from illegally.

---

"We should focus on safe passage, not criminal detention." - AOC

I believe in safe passage, too. Safe passage to a facility where your plea for asylum will be heard by a judge, then safe passage either to another facility to await a full hearing or safe passage to a bus that will safely pass you back into the country you came in from illegally.

I think she meant "from the border to the voting precinct."

---

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

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

Regarding the part in bold.  You are just doing what far left liberals do.  Say something false enough times so that people believe it.  No facts, nothing to substantiate the claim.  It just (in your mind) "most likely" happened so it must be true.

You're describing propaganda and every political party has members who do it.
I really do think it's true, though, that she was asked to resign over a dispute about what is legal and what is not.
I want this conversation to be about whether blocking asylum seekers from crossing while allowing documented people to pass is lawful or not.  I actually don't know for sure. No one wants to answer that question, though.

---

I believe in safe passage, too. Safe passage to a facility where your plea for asylum will be heard by a judge, then safe passage either to another facility to await a full hearing or safe passage to a bus that will safely pass you back into the country you came in from illegally.

I think she meant "from the border to the voting precinct."

Yep.  Your reptile brain fills in the blanks unfavorably for your enemies and favorably for your friends.  Just like everyone else's.

---

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

Regarding the part in bold.  You are just doing what far left liberals do.  Say something false enough times so that people believe it.  No facts, nothing to substantiate the claim.  It just (in your mind) "most likely" happened so it must be true.

You're describing propaganda and every political party has members who do it.
I really do think it's true, though, that she was asked to resign over a dispute about what is legal and what is not.
I want this conversation to be about whether blocking asylum seekers from crossing while allowing documented people to pass is lawful or not.  I actually don't know for sure. No one wants to answer that question, though.

---

I think she meant "from the border to the voting precinct."

Yep.  Your reptile brain fills in the blanks unfavorably for your enemies and favorably for your friends.  Just like everyone else's.

Lol, you might be a chameleon, but most of us are mammals.

---

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