US Airstrikes Underway in Syria

Darkhorse12 is right.  For decades, common for many presidents and immigration authorities to have wide discretion over immigration policy because of limited resources and impracticality of deporting everyone.  US constitution and congress allow the executive branch broad authority in the administration and enforcement of immigration laws.  So temporary deferral in deportation of illegal immigrants is constitutional according to letter signed by 105 law professors.  Every legal challenge to DACA has failed because DACA is constitutional according to American civil liberty union.

Presidents (executive of laws) might not enforce a  law, but that reflects on their lack of commitment to uphold a law (Constitution).

"Allow for broad authority" What are you saying? He has authority. You mean flexible authority? The Pres is the branch of govt that can define a threat to the US and can define immigration policy because of that authority.

The leftists ran to airports like IDIOTS to block travellers and yell/hold  anti-Trump placards--and the SUPREME COURT upheld the executivs branch authority FROM THE CONSTITUTION and liberal Supreme Court judges AGREED.

"105 LAW PROFESSORS"

YOU MAKE ME LAUGH. WHO GIVES a SH?T? 

 "according to the ACLU?"" A leftist, social justice professional sueing org. HAHHA, you are so funny b/c you don't realize what an idiot you are.

The SUPREME COURT is going to uphold the UNCONSTITUTIONALTY of DACA and the CANCELLATION of DACA. It is on their calendar. Until then, I don't give a turd abt 105 law professors and the ACLU. Dumb/

There is no altruistic/ democratic/ Christian/ Conservative/ American solution for ANYTHING in this region, there is no soft way of dealing with the root issues there....which is religious based. 

The crimes are awful, no question about it and have been for centuries irregardless of leader or which party had control of the POTUS and congress. There is no way we can resolve the issues there because they root deeper than politics.

So while Saddam was terrible at least he kept the root problems under control and now we see what happens when you remove a dictator who crushes the religious fighting, then the extremist get to start attacking their enemies and more people die, the country infrastructure crumbles and much worse damage taking much longer to repair ensues.

Given that it is a FACT we have never stopped the religious fighting in that part of the world, what else is there left to do? Do we remove a dicator like we did in Iraq and burn trillions of dollars and millions of lives so now the religious groups can form their own power bases and fight each other until the end of the world? Is that a solid solution? Is a solution that we try and occupy these places and force democracy on them and kill millions of US soldiers, many trillions of dollars and millions of civilians?

I'd take the approach which does the LEAST damage and gives the greatest chance at freedoms possible and scrap the altruistic democratic christian whatever approach which NEVER stands a chance and only does more harm. There is no way anyone can think that removing Assad will make things better...even if the guy is removed and the place is nuked, everyone dead all that does is give more real estate for the neighboring religious extremists to fight each other...because there is an endless flow of religious hate from country to country right there and it will never stop until the world is destroyed.