"I already alluded twice to the fact that the document affirms the legality of some proposed action and denies that of others - so it seems you finally took a look at it and found the denial that I already told you about.

No, I read the memo earlier when it was released. I still don't find either part compelling and I see it as more executive power grabbing, but let's look at it in detail since you don't actually point to any arguments beyond the memo, I guess I get to do all the work.

First, this memo is a learned opinion of lawyers who work for the executive branch. This is not an independent finding or court ruling.

The first part of the memo references only one case "See generally Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483–84 (1999)" which can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo... (the Supreme Court's actual page doesn't go back that far). The ruling for this one was "an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation". The memo cited section is for the definition of "deferred action". Which is true, it talks at great length about deferred action.

While pointing out later on in the document it points out:

"It is entirely understandable, however, why Congress would want only the discretion-protecting provision of §1252(g) applied even to pending cases: because that provision is specifically directed at the deconstruction, fragmentation, and hence prolongation of removal proceedings."

"This broad discretion [afforded the Executive] rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. Judicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor's motives and decision making to outside inquiry, and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government's enforcement policy. All of these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute."

I find the logic of using discretion that Congress has given the Executive branch in legislation as a way to speed the deportation process now being used to stop a large section of deporations to be counter to what the legislation intended.

While the memo goes on and says the one thing I believe:

"Third, the Executive Branch ordinarily cannot, as the Court put it in Chaney, "‘consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.""

This is the heart of the argument against this delay which is an abdication of its responsibilites. I have seen no argument, including from the memo stating the above line that makes me think this is anything but an abdication because the President couldn't get legislation from the lawfully elected body that is responsible for legislation that is to be faithfully executed by the President.

Beyond all this, I'm a little sick and tired of people cussing and thinking that makes good points. Name calling doesn't encourage anything other than deciding next time not to bother.