Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

Didn't Reagan do this?

no

 

[fatness]

Welcome to Costitution. I love you.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/

Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If anyone's interested in a serious look at this, here's a good one.

 

[Apple Jack]

Tom has to learn how to do a proper link

Are you struggling with clicking that one?

 

[Boston]

The end-game for the dems has always been to get the illegals the right to vote...I'm sure there are many libs with honest intentions but to the Shumers, Reids, Pelosis and Obamas it's all about power and this is a step in that direction...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If anyone's interested in a serious ...

 

[DocHolliday]

The end-game for the dems has always been to get the illegals the right to vote...I'm sure there are many libs with honest intentions but to the Shumers, Reids, Pelosis and Obamas it's all about power and this is a step in that direction...

Bingo.

 

[greenroom]

Didn't Reagan do this?

Yes, but Republicans want to think because it is Obama doing it, that it is not the same! Also President Bush has done it as well, but they were Republicans so it was ok!

 

[Boston]

Didn't Reagan do this?

Yes, but Republicans want to think because it is Obama doing it, that it is not the same! Also President Bush has done it as well, but they were Republicans so it was ok!

I believe those guys signed a bill passed by congress while Obama is acting unilaterally...that is a huge difference...

 

[Bayhawks]

GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”

Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?

The former, according to the article.

Not really. The article says Obama is trying to unconstitutionally revise a current law, but it provides NO DETAILS about he he is going to do this. It's either very poor reporting or they are just making #### up.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There's definitely a real question here about where executive authority ends in the absence of a controlling statute. But it's just that -- a question.

And it's good politics for Obama to ask the question and watch conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers/loons (pick four) flip out.

Obama's going to stir up the hornets nest as many times as he can during the next two years, too. If you can't get good policy you might as well do good politics.

 

[Clifford]

GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”

Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?

The former, according to the article.

Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).

When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?

According to the right, Obama unilaterally violates the constitution every time he sneezes or takes a dump.

 

[timschochet]

There's definitely a real question here about where executive authority ends in the absence of a controlling statute. But it's just that -- a question.

And it's good politics for Obama to ask the question and watch conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers/loons (pick four) flip out.

Obama's going to stir up the hornets nest as many times as he can during the next two years, too. If you can't get good policy you might as well do good politics.

Not just good politics. It's pretty downright brilliant. Conservatives go crazy and Dems get a lock on the Latino vote forever.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The end-game for the dems has always been to get the illegals the right to vote...I'm sure there are many libs with honest intentions but to the Shumers, Reids, Pelosis and Obamas it's all about power and this is a step in that direction...

Bingo.

Love the notion that this is somehow unique to one side. As if the GOP's efforts on voter ID laws, and the recent state legislature redistricting efforts, and the steadfast denial of elected representation for Washington DC residents, are based on some noble conservative goal rather than just a sleazy power grab intended to repress the votes/representation of minorities and others who don't support them.

 

[timschochet]

None of the networks are carrying Obama's speech tonight. The White House did not request it.

 

[jamny]

None of the networks are carrying Obama's speech tonight. The White House did not request it.

They didn't request it because they knew what the answer would be.

 

[timschochet]

None of the networks are carrying Obama's speech tonight. The White House did not request it.

They didn't request it because they knew what the answer would be.

not sure of that.

 

[Jackstraw]

The end-game for the dems has always been to get the illegals the right to vote...I'm sure there are many libs with honest intentions but to the Shumers, Reids, Pelosis and Obamas it's all about power and this is a step in that direction...

Bingo.

Or to do the right thing. But you know....whatevs.

 

[timschochet]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

 

[jamny]

None of the networks are carrying Obama's speech tonight. The White House did not request it.

They didn't request it because they knew what the answer would be.

not sure of that.

link

Stelter reported that White House officials decided against formally requesting that the major networks carry the address after getting the impression that they would be hesitant to do so, reports echoed by Deadline and The Hill. November is sweeps month, when primetime slots become all the more valuable. The four major networks have shows slotted for 8 p.m. that attract big audiences, including the fall finale of "Grey’s Anatomy" on ABC, Deadline noted.

 

[The Commish]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

The most important way we citizens show support is via voting

 

[timschochet]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

The most important way we citizens show support is via voting

it won't add illegal immigrants as new voters is what I meant.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

 

[The Commish]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

The most important way we citizens show support is via voting

it won't add illegal immigrants as new voters is what I meant.

But it will secure their "support"? What do you mean by "support" in this instance?

 

[Jackstraw]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

The most important way we citizens show support is via voting

it won't add illegal immigrants as new voters is what I meant.

But it will secure their "support"? What do you mean by "support" in this instance?

I think there are a couple of latinos in the country who are citizens and vote. Immigration is still a big issue to them. Immigration is a litmus test issue to latino citizens much like pro life stances are litmus test issues to evangelical voters.

 

[timschochet]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

The most important way we citizens show support is via voting

it won't add illegal immigrants as new voters is what I meant.

But it will secure their "support"? What do you mean by "support" in this instance?

it will secure the support of existing Latino American voters. It will not add new voters who were formerly illegal immigrants.

 

[TPW]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

 

[TPW]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

By letting them stay you are debasing the legal foundation upon which this nation was founded, thereby damaging society. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. "Rules for thee and not for me" is not how healthy, well-run nations conduct business.

 

[Apple Jack]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

By letting them stay you are debasing the legal foundation upon which this nation was founded, thereby damaging society. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. "Rules for thee and not for me" is not how healthy, well-run nations conduct business.

Are you familiar with the term "robber barons?"

 

[timschochet]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

By letting them stay you are debasing the legal foundation upon which this nation was founded, thereby damaging society. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. "Rules for thee and not for me" is not how healthy, well-run nations conduct business.

what foundation? I suggest sometime you ask a Native American what they think of our legal foundation and whether or not our ancestors came here "legally". What a joke.

 

[Glass Joe]

The end-game for the dems has always been to get the illegals the right to vote...I'm sure there are many libs with honest intentions but to the Shumers, Reids, Pelosis and Obamas it's all about power and this is a step in that direction...

Bingo.

Love the notion that this is somehow unique to one side. As if the GOP's efforts on voter ID laws, and the recent state legislature redistricting efforts, and the steadfast denial of elected representation for Washington DC residents, are based on some noble conservative goal rather than just a sleazy power grab intended to repress the votes/representation of minorities and others who don't support them.

 

[Green and Gold]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

By letting them stay you are debasing the legal foundation upon which this nation was founded, thereby damaging society. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. "Rules for thee and not for me" is not how healthy, well-run nations conduct business.

I dunno, didn't we have "Rules for thee and not for me" when it came to women and slaves?

 

[pantagrapher]

I think plenty of people will see it:

The White House declined to comment on the speech scheduling process, but the administration may have honed in on Thursday night because of Univision's planned telecast of the Latin Grammys.

The live telecast attracts an unusually high number of viewers to Univision, just like the English-language Grammys do, and Univision agreed to set aside about ten minutes for Obama's address.

Telemundo, the country's other prominent Spanish-language broadcaster, will also carry it live.

 

[matuski]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

By letting them stay you are debasing the legal foundation upon which this nation was founded, thereby damaging society. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. "Rules for thee and not for me" is not how healthy, well-run nations conduct business.

What in the holy #### are you spewing on about now?

 

[Sabertooth]

Didn't Reagan do this?

no

Sure he did. But then, he's white so it's ok I guess.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Obama thumbs nose at the last election, the new Congress and the American people.

Now when he has to veto bill after bill after bill and cannot get anyone he wants approved by Congress, you will blame Congress instead of where the blame belongs.

They should send him a bill a week to veto and not go along with anything he puts forward. They should fight hm every step of the way.

So Obama's legacy will be the huge failure of Obamacare, his absolutely terrible foreign policy and the overrunning of our borders bu illegals.

Going to be a fun two years. Only difference this time is the American people will realize who is really at fault.

He is making sure Clinton will not get elected and also that there will not be another black president for a very long time.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

not go along with anything he puts forward. They should fight hm every step of the way.

Why would they stop after six years?

 

[Slapdash]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Because amnesty without secure borders ensures this will happen again and again.

 

[Green and Gold]

Obama thumbs nose at the last election, the new Congress and the American people.

Now when he has to veto bill after bill after bill and cannot get anyone he wants approved by Congress, you will blame Congress instead of where the blame belongs.

They should send him a bill a week to veto and not go along with anything he puts forward. They should fight hm every step of the way.

So Obama's legacy will be the huge failure of Obamacare, his absolutely terrible foreign policy and the overrunning of our borders bu illegals.

Going to be a fun two years. Only difference this time is the American people will realize who is really at fault.

He is making sure Clinton will not get elected and also that there will not be another black president for a very long time.

Wishful thinking. The public's attention span doesn't stretch that far, and a lot can happen between then and now.

I'm not sure what race has to do with this, though.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Because amnesty without secure borders ensures this will happen again and again.

well personally that's fine with me . But in point of fact the proposed bill that passed the Senate did secure the borders. But the House refused to vote on it because they won't tolerate ANY recognition that the illegals already here aren't going back home.

 

[Boston]

None of the networks are carrying Obama's speech tonight. The White House did not request it.

Why would they...this is a political move and this is not good politics for the dems in the short-term...if it was he would have done it prior to the mid-terms when his fellow dems were drowning...politically this has a chance to change the entire political landscape in the GOP's favor like it did under Reagan (for differeht reasons)...you have an unpopular President who has a "fibbing" issue doing another thing he is on record saying he won't do...he is doing this in a total partisan fashion before the next congress gets sat...if the GOP acts like adults, shows why this is wrong and (most importantly) offers up another plan that makes sense they can put the dems even further on their heels than they currently are...

 

[Slapdash]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Because amnesty without secure borders ensures this will happen again and again.

well personally that's fine with me .But in point of fact the proposed bill that passed the Senate did secure the borders. But the House refused to vote on it because they won't tolerate ANY recognition that the illegals already here aren't going back home.

It isn't fine with me, but it is the lesser of the evils given the refusal of the GOP to address this issue.

 

[RCon]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Because amnesty without secure borders ensures this will happen again and again.

well personally that's fine with me .But in point of fact the proposed bill that passed the Senate did secure the borders. But the House refused to vote on it because they won't tolerate ANY recognition that the illegals already here aren't going back home.

 

[The Commish]

This whole argument about adding voters is really silly. It will be years (decades?) before any illegals are citizens eligible to vote.

This is, in large part, a political move, because it will secure Latino support. But it won't add new voters.

The most important way we citizens show support is via voting

it won't add illegal immigrants as new voters is what I meant.

But it will secure their "support"? What do you mean by "support" in this instance?

I think there are a couple of latinos in the country who are citizens and vote. Immigration is still a big issue to them. Immigration is a litmus test issue to latino citizens much like pro life stances are litmus test issues to evangelical voters.

Is there concern on the Dems part that they are going to lose the Latino vote? Is there some third party I don't know about? I need the 411 if so

 

[The Commish]

Listening to an immigration lawyer on the radio and she made the point that the reality is that the courts are so backed up on illegal immigration that very little deportation is being done anyhow. We are never going to deport most of these people; they're here to stay. So why not acknowledge the fact?

Ah, the old "It's too hard so let's just ignore the problem and it'll go away" argument. This is the logic of impotent, dying societies.

Actually no. The solution to this "problem" is to let them stay and benefit our society.

By letting them stay you are debasing the legal foundation upon which this nation was founded, thereby damaging society. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. "Rules for thee and not for me" is not how healthy, well-run nations conduct business.

what foundation? I suggest sometime you ask a Native American what they think of our legal foundation and whether or not our ancestors came here "legally". What a joke.

Do you believe the circumstances and state of our country today are similar to the times prior to our country even existing? I'd like to hear the rationale behind that if so. Even I, the most pessimistic of our gov't, can see we've made huge strides. If you're falling back on "but we did it that way 200 years ago" you're doing it wrong IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Commish, in the last 2 elections Latinos voted for Dems 70-30, but that's not a permanent percentage. 45% of Latinos voted for George W Bush. What Dems want is to lock up that 70% figure permanently, because if they can they will become the dominant national party. Many people believe this is the means to do so.

 

[tdoss]

How does Amnesty work? Every 20 years we just "accept" all the illegals who are here and just start over?

How does that ever solve the problem of ILLEGAL immigration?

 

[siffoin]

I know nothing about this issue:

Can anyone tell me if this has any meaningful and direct impact on my life?