Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (2 Viewers)

[drummer]

Hold on, Stinger Ray is gonna give us a sermon tonight, that crazy old coot.

 

[Rich Conway]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

ive always been in favor of this. Manifest Destiny!

Screw that. Give me Canada.

Canada is cold.

 

[jon_mx]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

ive always been in favor of this. Manifest Destiny!

Screw that. Give me Canada.

Canada is cold.

So it my wife, but that does not stop me.

 

[skol asylum]

We should just adopt South America. It's the right thing to do.

ive always been in favor of this. Manifest Destiny!

Screw that. Give me Canada.

Canada is cold.

And full of natural resources.

 

[humpback]

I'm hoping that thoughtful people will read some of this stuff. Rich Conway is a guy whom I believe would change his mind if presented with facts and figures (as I would hope I would.) Humpack and Walking Boots and Strike are the sorts that will never change their minds on this issue no matter what new info comes out.

Maybe if you spent less time spewing horse#### and more time reading (with a semi-open mind) you'd actually get something correct. I'm not a republican nor a conservative, so while you like to lump everyone into neat little boxes in your twisted mind, you have no idea what you're talking about here (yet again). I'm not agreeing with the Heritage study (it's likely just as biased in one direction as the crap you are posting is in the other), I'm just pointing out that the links you are providing don't say what you claim they are saying.

You won't find a bigger fan than I of facts and figures when they are legitimate. When they are spun and twisted into saying something that they simply don't say, not so much. You constantly spin things to the point of completely making stuff up in order to try and back up your world view. Then when you are called out on it, you just move the goalposts. It's pathetic.

You aren't a Liberal or a Conservative, more like a melding of the worst attributes of both into one unique cesspool.

 

[Jim11]

Opponents of the Obama amnesty should use this quote of his...he's supposed to enforce laws, not make/change them.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law

“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

 

[squistion]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration

If there's one thing we've seen over and over from all sorts of pollsters, it's that Americans are very positive on the idea of immigration reform. So it's no surprise that a new poll from CNN/ORC of adult Americans confirms exactly that, finding strong support for the plan Barack Obama announced last week to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants (full poll here):

Q: A major part of Obama's new policy changes will allow some immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if they have children who are U.S. citizens. Other immigrants in the U.S. illegally will not be eligible for this program and can still be deported. Do you think that plan goes too far, does not go far enough, or is about right?

Too far: 26

Not far enough: 22

About right: 50

Undecided: 1

That's a bare majority who outright favor Obama's move, plus another 22 percent who presumably are on board but would like to see him do more. In other words, adult Americans back the president by an overwhelming 72-26 margin. Republicans are seriously fighting the wrong battle in trying to oppose this.

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration

If there's one thing we've seen over and over from all sorts of pollsters, it's that Americans are very positive on the idea of immigration reform. So it's no surprise that a new poll from CNN/ORC of adult Americans confirms exactly that, finding strong support for the plan Barack Obama announced last week to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants (full poll here):

Q: A major part of Obama's new policy changes will allow some immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if they have children who are U.S. citizens. Other immigrants in the U.S. illegally will not be eligible for this program and can still be deported. Do you think that plan goes too far, does not go far enough, or is about right?

Too far: 26

Not far enough: 22

About right: 50

Undecided: 1

That's a bare majority who outright favor Obama's move, plus another 22 percent who presumably are on board but would like to see him do more. In other words, adult Americans back the president by an overwhelming 72-26 margin. Republicans are seriously fighting the wrong battle in trying to oppose this.

How convenient that you left out the actual title of the article

Poll: Obama's immigration policy popular, but approach isn't

That's why people laugh when others bring in stuff from the extreme left Daily Kos. Nothing like far left bias.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration

If there's one thing we've seen over and over from all sorts of pollsters, it's that Americans are very positive on the idea of immigration reform. So it's no surprise that a new poll from CNN/ORC of adult Americans confirms exactly that, finding strong support for the plan Barack Obama announced last week to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants (full poll here):

Q: A major part of Obama's new policy changes will allow some immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if they have children who are U.S. citizens. Other immigrants in the U.S. illegally will not be eligible for this program and can still be deported. Do you think that plan goes too far, does not go far enough, or is about right?

Too far: 26

Not far enough: 22

About right: 50

Undecided: 1

That's a bare majority who outright favor Obama's move, plus another 22 percent who presumably are on board but would like to see him do more. In other words, adult Americans back the president by an overwhelming 72-26 margin. Republicans are seriously fighting the wrong battle in trying to oppose this.

that's shocking to me. Don't get me wrong, I like hearing it. But it's shocking.

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration

If there's one thing we've seen over and over from all sorts of pollsters, it's that Americans are very positive on the idea of immigration reform. So it's no surprise that a new poll from CNN/ORC of adult Americans confirms exactly that, finding strong support for the plan Barack Obama announced last week to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants (full poll here):

Q: A major part of Obama's new policy changes will allow some immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if they have children who are U.S. citizens. Other immigrants in the U.S. illegally will not be eligible for this program and can still be deported. Do you think that plan goes too far, does not go far enough, or is about right?

Too far: 26

Not far enough: 22

About right: 50

Undecided: 1

That's a bare majority who outright favor Obama's move, plus another 22 percent who presumably are on board but would like to see him do more. In other words, adult Americans back the president by an overwhelming 72-26 margin. Republicans are seriously fighting the wrong battle in trying to oppose this.

that's shocking to me. Don't get me wrong, I like hearing it. But it's shocking.

I wouldn't get too excited about it though, because not more than a week ago it was completely different story.

 

[squistion]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration

If there's one thing we've seen over and over from all sorts of pollsters, it's that Americans are very positive on the idea of immigration reform. So it's no surprise that a new poll from CNN/ORC of adult Americans confirms exactly that, finding strong support for the plan Barack Obama announced last week to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants (full poll here):

Q: A major part of Obama's new policy changes will allow some immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if they have children who are U.S. citizens. Other immigrants in the U.S. illegally will not be eligible for this program and can still be deported. Do you think that plan goes too far, does not go far enough, or is about right?

Too far: 26

Not far enough: 22

About right: 50

Undecided: 1

That's a bare majority who outright favor Obama's move, plus another 22 percent who presumably are on board but would like to see him do more. In other words, adult Americans back the president by an overwhelming 72-26 margin. Republicans are seriously fighting the wrong battle in trying to oppose this.

How convenient that you left out the actual title of the article

I didn't, line after the link is the actual title of the DKos article

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration

If there's one thing we've seen over and over from all sorts of pollsters, it's that Americans are very positive on the idea of immigration reform. So it's no surprise that a new poll from CNN/ORC of adult Americans confirms exactly that, finding strong support for the plan Barack Obama announced last week to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants (full poll here):

Q: A major part of Obama's new policy changes will allow some immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if they have children who are U.S. citizens. Other immigrants in the U.S. illegally will not be eligible for this program and can still be deported. Do you think that plan goes too far, does not go far enough, or is about right?

Too far: 26

Not far enough: 22

About right: 50

Undecided: 1

That's a bare majority who outright favor Obama's move, plus another 22 percent who presumably are on board but would like to see him do more. In other words, adult Americans back the president by an overwhelming 72-26 margin. Republicans are seriously fighting the wrong battle in trying to oppose this.

How convenient that you left out the actual title of the article

I didn't, line after the link is the actual title of the DKos article

No, you didn't. Here is the link to the REAL Cnn article, not filtered thru the extreme left lens.

 

[squistion]

How convenient that you left out the actual title of the article

I didn't, line after the link is the actual title of the DKos article

No, you didn't. Here is the link to the REAL Cnn article, not filtered thru the extreme left lens.

I didn't post a CNN article, I posted a Daily Kos article and that was the actual title of the article. "New CNN poll: Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's action on immigration" See link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347695/-New-CNN-poll-Americans-overwhelmingly-support-Obama-s-action-on-immigration

To post a title from a another site which was not from the article I linked would be false and misleading and I would probably get warning points from the mods, plus complaints from people who (you know) actually read the article and noticed that I substituted a title different than the one in the link.

 

[fatness]

Opponents of the Obama amnesty should use this quote of his...he's supposed to enforce laws, not make/change them.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law

“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

You can always depend on Breibart comments.

Why is Latin America a poverty ridden toilet? They have oil, minerals, lumber, tons of resources. Why can't they make proper use of these things to make life better for their people? The reason is because they are incapable of doing so. They don't know their asses from their elbows. Is this because of their race? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. If anyone does know why, I am open to instruction.

He's just doing what African Dictators do. What's so unusual about that?

Directive No. 10-289 has been ordered by the Kenyan Community Organizer. I'm afraid there is little we can do about it now. ; - )

The closet Muslim can't hide from America.

Constitutional crisis, indeed. It is unclear if the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of the US military understand the full implication of Obama’s recent Executive Order on immigration. I use the name Obama with out the adjective “President” because it is unclear if Obama is still President and Commander-in-chief of the US military.

Steve Forbes maintains that the Obama immigration order, “…will mark the most blatant attempt to subvert the Constitution since Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...

Is Obama’s Executive Order unconstitutional? If it is, then by that action Obama makes the US Constitution null and void. It the US Constitution is null and void, then what follows is that the United States of America no longer exists and that the concept of a US citizen also no longer exists. Ironically, this is almost the same Constitutional argument that swirls around the still unsettled matter of Obama’s birth certificate and his status as a natural born citizen.

 

[Apple Jack]

It's like a fetal alcohol support group.

 

[Apple Jack]

I haven't read the content. What's it say?

 

[Johnny Rock]

Unintended consequences? You don't say.

"Obamacare offers firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

 

[squistion]

Unintended consequences? You don't say.

"Obamacare offers firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

And when you are finished reading that, another unbiased article from this site:

Family secret: What the left won't tell you about black crime

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/21/family-secret-what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-bl/

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Unintended consequences? You don't say.

"Obamacare offers firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

And when you are finished reading that, another unbiased article from this site:

Family secret: What the left won't tell you about black crime

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/21/family-secret-what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-bl/

The Moonies!

 

[jonessed]

Unintended consequences? You don't say.

"Obamacare offers firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

That's something they obviously need to fix, but likely can't due to the path the law took.

 

[squistion]

Rachel Maddow MSNBC ‏@maddow · 12m12 minutes ago

Everybody freak out! Or don't! http://goo.gl/5EZkGb

Immigration outrage remains quite limited

By msnbc @msnbc

A week ago, a Senate Republican said about Obama's immigration policy, "The country's going to go nuts," How's that prediction working out?

 

[timschochet]

To be fair, the Ferguson story has dominated the news cycle, allowing for little else.

It's interesting to me: one of the predictions about cable 24 hour news stations was that we, the public, would get a larger variety of news. But in fact it's the exact opposite- all channels show the same thing over and over again especially when there is an incident like Ferguson . It sucks the breath out of every other story.

 

[squistion]

Most people we know, they may have political views, but they dont really want to talk about them. Too difficult. Its a lot easier and safer to talk about sports, or American Idol, or where to eat for dinner. And when they do argue over these issues, the arguments tend to be short and sweet, with lots of platitudes thrown in, parroting viewpoints weve all heard on talk radio and in the news.

I fail to see the connection to any recent posts. Perhaps you should quote what you are responding to.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Seventeen States Sue Obama Over Immigration ActionTexas Attorney General Greg Abbott

Announced Suit That Claims President Violated Constitution

Dec. 3, 2014 3:21 p.m. ET

AUSTIN, Texas—Texas and 16 other states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging President Barack Obama ’s executive action on immigration last month, claiming the White House overstepped its authority.

The federal suit, announced by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the state’s governor-elect, comes after a number of Republican lawmakers in states around the country have claimed that the president was illegally rewriting immigration law without approval from Congress and in violation of the Constitution.

“The president’s unilateral executive action tramples the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause and federal law,” Mr. Abbott said in a statement.

States involved include Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that immigration is a federal, not a state, concern, and many legal experts have said the president has wide “prosecutorial discretion” to decide who gets deported and who gets to remain in the country. Immigration experts also point to previous presidents who have issued similar policies, albeit for much smaller groups of people.

Mr. Obama announced after the midterm elections last month that he would bypass Congress to implement a series of changes to immigration policy. The most controversial element offers some four million people in the U.S. illegally the chance to win a reprieve from possible deportation and to gain work permits.

To qualify, applicants must show they have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and have a child who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The president also expanded a 2012 program that gives similar safe harbor to young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

House Republican leaders angry over Mr. Obama’s immigration changes have pledged to challenge the president’s action. But their legislative options are limited, given Mr. Obama’s promise to veto any bill they pass rolling the policy back. Some have suggested adding the immigration issue to a long-threatened lawsuit they filed last month challenging the Obama administration’s implementation of its health-care law.

Mr. Abbott argued that Mr. Obama didn’t follow the Administrative Procedure Act in issuing his immigration directive. He also argued that the action will exacerbate a humanitarian crisis of people trying to enter the country illegally along the southern border, which will require increased state investment in law enforcement, heath care and education.

 

[fatness]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

 

[Sand]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

POTUS has been smacked down a couple times, including a 9-0 drubbing over the NLRB case. There is precedent here that overreach is in play.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

White Americans, what?
Nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant too?

Who's usin' who?
What should we do?
Well you can't be a pimp
And a prostitute too

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

 

[Sand]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As long as no one gets between Greg Abbott and a TV or microphone everyone should be OK.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's an overreach. I don't think it's unconstitutional but then I'm hardly a scholar. Doubt these states will win any court case though. Sounds like a political reaction.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Cool your link states that neither of those "same things" were controversial. That should suggest an answer to your question about what fatness would do if a Republican President did the "same thing".

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Cool your link states that neither of those "same things" were controversial. That should suggest an answer to your question about what fatness would do if a Republican President did the "same thing".

But they weren't. Nice try, though. Isn't swinging from Obama's nutsack 24/7 tiring for you?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Cool your link states that neither of those "same things" were controversial. That should suggest an answer to your question about what fatness would do if a Republican President did the "same thing".

But they weren't. Nice try, though. Isn't swinging from Obama's nutsack 24/7 tiring for you?

Exactly! No one cared.

 

[Sand]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Something like this?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Something like this?

I think that'll do.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Cool your link states that neither of those "same things" were controversial. That should suggest an answer to your question about what fatness would do if a Republican President did the "same thing".

But they weren't. Nice try, though. Isn't swinging from Obama's nutsack 24/7 tiring for you?

Exactly! No one cared.

apples to oranges. You can rest easy that you tried.

 

[fatness]

Republican Congressmen Shaking Fists, Really Hard

Late Tuesday, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) called for Boehner to not invite Obama to deliver the State of the Union address next year. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) suggested that the budgets for White House operations, including for Air Force One, should be decreased. Other conservatives have mentioned censuring the president, impeaching him or suing the administration over its immigration actions.

“I’d rather defund Air Force One,” Huelskamp said. “Congress took a 19 percent cut on its budgets — we should do the same for the White House.” On the State of the Union, he added: “In the spirit of George Washington, he could send it to us in writing. It’d save some time.”

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think it's an overreach. I don't think it's unconstitutional but then I'm hardly a scholar. Doubt these states will win any court case though. Sounds like a political reaction.

Good thing the Supreme Court is so apolitical.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

POTUS has been smacked down a couple times, including a 9-0 drubbing over the NLRB case. There is precedent here that overreach is in play.

It's not clear that the lawsuit addresses the issue of how far can the President go (instead of just generally questioning his authority -- which he plainly has), but I agree that there's a real question.

I'm torn probably 80/20 between hoping the courts tell Congress to pass a law if they don't like what he's doing, and hoping they articulate how much discretion a President actually has.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

Yesterday's Washington Post editorial...

President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration has no precedentBy Editorial Board December 3 at 7:32 PM
THE WHITE House has defended President Obama’s unilateral decision to legalize the presence of nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants as consistent, even in scope, with the executive actions of previous presidents. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.

Central to the administration’s argument is its contention that the 4 million covered by the president’s order — some 36 percent of the estimated undocumented population of 11 million — is in line with the percentage covered by a comparable action by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. At that time, there were about 3.5 million illegal immigrants in the country; Mr. Obama, administration officials and their allies have said that about 1.5 million of them — the spouses and children of previously amnestied immigrants — benefited from Mr. Bush’s move.

In addition to the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, and Mr. Obama himself, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel cited the Bush executive action as precedent, using the figure of 1.5 million immigrants.

However, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler has scrupulously reported , there is every reason to believe that the estimate is wildly exaggerated and based mainly on what appears to have been a misunderstanding at the time.

When the measure was announced, Bush administration officials estimated the number who would be affected at around 100,000. While that was followed by some fuzziness and upward revisions, the actual number affected by the 1990 order was clearly a fraction — perhaps a couple of hundred thousand people, at most — of the 1.5 million that Obama administration officials have cited.


Even the apparent original source of the 1.5 million figure — Gene McNary, who led the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time — told Mr. Kessler he believes the number is false and was based on a misunderstanding from testimony he gave to Congress. And no underlying data or methodology to justify the 1.5 million figure has been uncovered.

This is not a game of gotcha; facts matter — even in Washington — and so do the numbers. Under close scrutiny it is plain that the White House’s numbers are indefensible. It is similarly plain that the scale of Mr. Obama’s move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted.

A responsible Congress would have legislated a fix to the nation’s broken immigration system. It is outrageous that Republican leaders in the House refused to allow a vote on a bill that passed the Senate last year. That bill, backed by Democrats and some moderate Republicans, stood a good chance of passing the House and becoming law. Even now, Republicans’ refusal to enact a bill — and their use of Mr. Obama’s order as further pretext for obstinacy and paralysis — is an abdication of leadership and duty.

Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act. Unlike Mr. Bush in 1990, whose much more modest order was in step with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, Mr. Obama’s move flies in the face of congressional intent — no matter how indefensible that intent looks.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Unprecedented in scope, yes.

 

[Sand]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

POTUS has been smacked down a couple times, including a 9-0 drubbing over the NLRB case. There is precedent here that overreach is in play.

It's not clear that the lawsuit addresses the issue of how far can the President go (instead of just generally questioning his authority -- which he plainly has), but I agree that there's a real question.

I'm torn probably 80/20 between hoping the courts tell Congress to pass a law if they don't like what he's doing, and hoping they articulate how much discretion a President actually has.

I'd be surprised if the courts make a wide sweeping statement on the length of the president's leash. And, like most law, I haven't the foggiest how this would actually be ruled. Common sense and court judgments don't necessarily correlate.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seventeen States Shake Fists, Really Hard

As they should. And you should be just as upset for the unconstitutional overreach.

Way to set precedent. I'm guessing I'll see you standing up for it when a Republican President does the same thing, right?

Like when Reagan and Bush did the same thing?

These aren't judged by comparison. To do so is silly. Each is its own creature.

And, yes, this is a massive overreach.

BFS is trying so hard to defend Obama with this weak ### talking point. Can you at least give him a trophy for trying to compare apples to oranges?

Cool your link states that neither of those "same things" were controversial. That should suggest an answer to your question about what fatness would do if a Republican President did the "same thing".

But they weren't. Nice try, though. Isn't swinging from Obama's nutsack 24/7 tiring for you?

Exactly! No one cared.

apples to oranges. You can rest easy that you tried.

Yep, the reaction between liberals and wing nuts has proven to be totally different.

 

[greenroom]

Can we update the title since, despite TGOP wish's what Obama did was not Unconstitutional after all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can we update the title since, despite TGOP wish's what Obama did was not Unconstitutional after all.

Lets wait until he makes his amnesty announcement before we jump to conclusions.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Heh. The complete GOP cave today tells you all you need to know about where they really stand on "tyranny".

i.e. it's a bunch of window dressing to rile the yokels up just in time to vote.

 

[timschochet]

Heh. The complete GOP cave today tells you all you need to know about where they really stand on "tyranny".

i.e. it's a bunch of window dressing to rile the yokels up just in time to vote.

What did they do (or not do)?