The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 66323
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




With President Obama's passage of his new executive order it raises a strong question. Is he right? Many people feel that everything that this president does is strictly wrong, but before rushing to judgment on his new executive order lets first take a hard look at it and see what is right and wrong with it. President Obama has been known as the deported in chief by the Latin American community. President Obama has previously separated family's of people who are trying to make a better life for themselves. With the passage of the new executive action President Obama won't separate family's. How can a republican party who claims to be based on "Christian Values" stand for separating family's? This executive action will also deport any illegal immigrants who have criminal records. It is virtually impossible to deport all illegal immigrants, so instead of having them live here for years illegally why not give them a path to citizenship and let them be a productive member of society?


Hello and thanks for starting this debate! I am independent, therefor I do not affiliate with any political party, so it is ignorant to use arguments pertaining to political affiliation. Also, this debate is clearly about Obama's right to this action, so we will be debating whether or not he should have used his power of executive action.

I don't necessarily stand with or against what he passed, however that is not what we are debating. We are debating "Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration". I believe he should not have used executive action in this particular instance because in future presidencies, it can be easily repealed. Had President Obama gone through congress, his bill would be more permanent. You might be saying something along the lines of, "well, it wouldn't have passed had it gone though the legislative brach". I agree completely. However, this is simple democracy/republicanism.

The founding fathers designed the government so one man would not speak on the behalf of the entire country. I believe that presidents have the power of executive action, but only to an extent. Past presidencies have used it, just not to this extent.

Debate Round No. 1


I completely respect your opinion, but I must tell you that your first argument is completely wrong. There was a bipartisan immigration reform bill which was passed in the U.S. Senate. This bill was voted 68 to 32 and was passed. Mr. Boehner has had over 500 days to bring this bill to the house floor and has not. This bill would have passed in the House of Representatives, but was never even brought to the floor. President Obama's executive action has in it almost everything that was in this bill. For a Republican 2016 Presidential candidate to oppose this executive action he will be committing political suicide. The Republicans won the midterm election by appealing to minority's. The Republicans have not made up any immigration reform that opposes President Obama's action, other than sealing down our borders, which I believe in and President Obama has promised to do. For those who argue that this action invites more illegals to come across are strictly wrong. President Obama has warned anyone who wants to come over that they will be sent back and our boarder will be secured. The thought that we live in a country in which so many people want to come and live in should make everyone proud. For those who argue that the illegals need to come here legally do not understand that it is almost impossible. These people live in the three worst country's in the world Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, there is no way that these people can go through the proper way of coming to America. How easy do you think it is to track down 11.5 million illegal immigrants? I'm assuming that you think it is not very easy. IT WON'T HAPPEN! In stead of saying that we will deport all illegals currently living in America, why not make them become citizens and become a constructive part of society? These people have avoided paying much of their taxes for years and will be fined. Even though a Republican may take over in 2017 the illegal immigrants still have time to become a citizen. You must complete three semesters of the citizenship class in order to become a citizen. If they started their pathway to citizenship next semester, then they will have three and a half semesters to complete their citizenship before a new president takes over. President Obama has tried to go through the Congress and has been successful in the Senate, but because of a Speaker of the House who refuses to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor President Obama is forced to make this executive order. This is a very important issue that has been set aside for years and can not be overlooked. Another second in which the congress does not take action is a second too long. President Obama's action is an immediate call for action, but he knows this action will not become a law unless congress passes a similar law. President Obama has invited Congress to "pass a bill" countless number of times and it just has not happened in the Republican controlled house, Why?


"I completely respect your opinion, but I must tell you that your first argument is completely wrong."

Funny thing about opinions, their always going to be wrong to some one.

You brought up a lot information, however your not arguing for the debate. The debate is clearly, "Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration". Were debating whether or not he should have done it. Did he have the right to do it?

Also, next time, please space your argument out. It helps organize your thoughts.

The constitution clearly states that if the president wants to make a bill of this proportion, he must go through congress. Whether or not congress would have approved of his bill is irrelevant. Popular sovereignty prevails, and it always will. When 17 states sue you because they do not agree with your action, something went wrong.

While it is important to note that congress has been debating immigration, it is only because neither side is willing to compromise.

I will tell you right now, if you can find a passage in the constitution that reads along the lines of, "If congress cannot pass a bill, then the president has the power to do what ever he wants."

Were not talking about justification, were talking about Obama's right to executive action. Please, read to me the constitution.

Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
Its a hard argument to believe that the president has done something contrary to what Congress has allowed.

Thus far, there has been no will of Congress. No votes on the matter have given an indication, up or down. Like many other things, it gets bogged down due to political gamesmanship.

With this variety of EO, the president is making no specific additional appropriations, and is advocating making use of current resources for the best outcome until such time as something comes out of the legislature.

If the cry is 'something has to be done!' then don't grouse about it when they guy you are going to blame for not doing anything in fact tries to get something done.
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
@AVPC and james14 I agree
Using executive action means that the law bypasses Congress, which exists to keep the president's power in check as well as to reflect the voice of the people. By using executive actions, Obama is violating the very core of democracy itself, as he is trying to bypass the representatives voted by the people.

I hope Con wins this debate as I really don't think Obama did the right thing.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Obama never does anything that does not have a political motive. All that action does is creates a larger democrat base.Now a constitutional republican can get in office and reverse those orders. So he has done nothing but create false hopes for these people.

My opinion is they need to stay in their own country and get rid of the government that causes the poverty and violence that drove them here.If all 20,000,000 would go back to Mexico, they could get it done. Not stay here for the freebies so many of them are freeloading off of.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
Con, use the Constitution to your advantage. You are quite right in the ramifications of unlimited monarch-like executive decrees. However, also note that Obama was quite simply doing what he wasn't allowed to do.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
Obama's "power of executive action" is unconstitutional. Acting directly against the will of Congress, he did what Congress would have never done. This is unconstitutional because:

The constitution hands all legislative power to Congress

The President's action was basically legislative (he made a law that people had to obey)

Congress did not delegate this power to him but opposed his actions.

Hope the Supreme Court strikes our new monarch down.
Posted by AVPC 2 years ago
Good Job Con. You handled your answer well!
Posted by AVPC 2 years ago
Let's see how this debate goes. Hope con puts a good fight.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied. Con had one source provided while pro did not provide any. I also believe pro had more convincing arguments, even though I agree more overall with con. I believe there are plenty more reasons why prematurely and illegally taking executive action was wrong, I wish more was said.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Morally right vs constitutionally right, vs whats the harm kinda right. The Constitution gives no specific power regarding an EO beyond that the president dutifully execute the law. I think pro made a better case for that duty being followed, that being a bill currently being knocked around to be executed, or at the very least dedicate current resources to alternate (possibly more efficient) plans.