Posted on 04/20/2016 2:56:15 AM PDT by Olog-hai
“Lawfully” does not mean “legally.”
Welcome to what Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court on Monday is the “immigration world.” Or, more accurately, welcome to the new world President Barack Obama — through his solicitor — is asking the Supreme Court to join him in declaring. […]
“Aliens with lawful status under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] are here lawfully; their presence therefore is not a basis for removal,” said Obama’s solicitor in his brief. “By contrast, mere ‘lawful presence’ occurs when the Executive ‘openly tolerate[s] an undocumented alien’s continued presence in the United States for a fixed period (subject to revocation at the agency’s discretion),’ notwithstanding that the alien lacks lawful status and is present in violation of the law.”
So in the words of Obama’s own solicitor: An “undocumented alien” whom the administration grants “lawful presence” remains “present in violation of the law. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
2 + 2 = cinco
Just typical new wave DemoRat doublespeak; good = bad, black = white, straight = gay
Unfortunately, there are at least four members of the Supreme Court that will accept absurdity if Obama wants them to.
The fact some of these positions are even articulated tells me America is lost. Adults can choose what bathroom to use based on how they feel. It just goes on and on.
Right is wrong and wrong is right.
There’s classified and then there’s classified.
Socialism requires that you live a lie.
So let me see if I've got this right. You're saying it's like you're going to a prison to visit someone with a day pass. With the day pass, you are there "lawfully".
Now once inside the prison, you hide and are there long after your day pass expires. You are now there "illegally".
The problem with the argument is yes, you may be granted "lawful purpose" to enter, but once you've stayed beyond that "lawful purpose", you are here both illegally and unlawfully.
so it’s illegal, but since the president decides not to enforce that law, they are here ‘lawfully’
got it?
2 + 2 = 5
Common core math aside, I’d say the root of lawfully-legally hair splitting goes back to 1998.
After a deep inhale, Bubba responded to a grand jury in classical “answer a question with a question” with the question of “it depends on what the meaning of “Is” “Is”. Socrates he weren’t!
Instead of laughing him back to Hope, people were somewhere between amused and awed. Thus Verrilli must think if it worked once, it becomes precedent.
Or something like that...
By extension, any law can become null and void if the activity becomes “lawfully”.
So we return to the days with the word of the King was the law.
Selective enforcement of laws leads to chaos. But this is what the left wants so they are consistent.
Come on, people! It’s all right there in the, “penumbras and emanations” clause!
As long as you identify as lawful you can legally crap on the laws.
Try doing that en Mexico Barack...or most other countries for that matter.
bookmark
In obamaworld, a tax is not a tax, killing babies is a lifesaving event, and illegal is legal.
This is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.