(04-10-2019, 09:03 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

(04-10-2019, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: 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."

---

(04-10-2019, 10:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(04-10-2019, 09:03 AM)B2hibry Wrote: 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.

---

(04-10-2019, 08:51 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

(04-09-2019, 09:58 PM)mikesez Wrote: 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?

---