Obama Executive Order

[TheBlueVue 177]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Please cite one way to do this. When you have the Chief law enforcement officer,AG Eric Holder, in the Presidents pocket it is much easier said than done. There is absolutely no way short of impeachment to force the President to do anything. They can pass a short term budget instead of an omnibus bill and defund it but that would result in shutting the govt down. This president does not compromise on anything.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I am not that comfortable with this being handled by EO. However, if Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans were serious about immigration reform they would either put out their own proposal or pass/amend the Senate bill. Otherwise, just admit you think the status quo is acceptable. Anything less and they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. We need reform, but we aren't willing to actually reform it therefore we ultimately don't think we need it.

Congress is failing to do its job which is to legislate. When you don't do your job, it leaves the Administration open to find ways to do it for you, and that is not how our government was intended to work.

The House hasn't put forth anything new because the central point of their plan has been categorically rejected and that is doing border security first. I believe most reasonable people agree that our borders are neither secure nor are they even being enforced. The House, who is responding to the will of the people, wants that done before anything else is even considered and i agree with their position. An overwhelming majority of Americans are against the President using EO to address this problem.

Wow. What an excuse! They could put forward a bill with the central idea of border security while addressing other things that aren't so controversial (expansion of certain visas, etc.). I have yet to see that proposal. So again, more bloviating, and no actual solutions.

You fail to acknowledge the rigidity of BHO. his idea of an effective Congress is one that lays down and does everything he tells them to do. When they dont respond accordingly he takes to his bully pulpit using his megaphone to drown out every other voice. This is not an excuse..this is a fact. You dont seem to understand that there is only one way of doing things for this president..his way or the highway and you can call that bloviating if you wish but, I call it a sad day for America when a President has convinced the people that his failures are all the fault of his political opposition.

Beautifully written rhetoric with the obligatory personal dig thrown in. Great post!

You cannot refute a single word.

[cooltigger21 0]

I am not that comfortable with this being handled by EO. However, if Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans were serious about immigration reform they would either put out their own proposal or pass/amend the Senate bill. Otherwise, just admit you think the status quo is acceptable. Anything less and they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. We need reform, but we aren't willing to actually reform it therefore we ultimately don't think we need it.

Congress is failing to do its job which is to legislate. When you don't do your job, it leaves the Administration open to find ways to do it for you, and that is not how our government was intended to work.

The House hasn't put forth anything new because the central point of their plan has been categorically rejected and that is doing border security first. I believe most reasonable people agree that our borders are neither secure nor are they even being enforced. The House, who is responding to the will of the people, wants that done before anything else is even considered and i agree with their position. An overwhelming majority of Americans are against the President using EO to address this problem.

Wow. What an excuse! They could put forward a bill with the central idea of border security while addressing other things that aren't so controversial (expansion of certain visas, etc.). I have yet to see that proposal. So again, more bloviating, and no actual solutions.

You fail to acknowledge the rigidity of BHO. his idea of an effective Congress is one that lays down and does everything he tells them to do. When they dont respond accordingly he takes to his bully pulpit using his megaphone to drown out every other voice. This is not an excuse..this is a fact. You dont seem to understand that there is only one way of doing things for this president..his way or the highway and you can call that bloviating if you wish but, I call it a sad day for America when a President has convinced the people that his failures are all the fault of his political opposition.

Beautifully written rhetoric with the obligatory personal dig thrown in. Great post!

Another ICHY post on rhetoric. Count on it just like clockwork.

[autigeremt 6,598]

RIR......the question is very clear so need to say "if."

channoc......I agree with you that Congress hasn't done it's job. We probably disagree on why that is. But I don't think that justifies the POTUS stopping deportations by EO. If Eric Holder had been enforcing EXISTING laws since he has ben AG the number of illegals we have to deal with would be far less.

I am not trying to justify anything, just pointing out that if you don't do your job, someone else is likely to do it and you won't like it. Again, I don't think I am for an EO, but Congress has to look in the mirror. The Senate did their job... we are still waiting on Speaker Boehner and crew to put some bills behind the rhetoric.

If they were doing their job they would craft a bipartisan package. The Senate did their "job" but it is one sided. The House would do the same thing. DC is broken and the President is a big part of the equation.

The Constitution be damned since no one is doing their job(s)? Unbelievable.

[autigeremt 6,598]

If the question is: Am I in favor of an EO to thaw the gridlock in Congress? ... Then the answer is emphatically, YES ... they've been sitting on Immigration Reform for at least 2 years.

I don't support the continued skirting of the Constitution......gridlock or not. You wouldn't support it if a Republican was in the White House.....

[TheBlueVue 177]

RIR......the question is very clear so need to say "if."

channoc......I agree with you that Congress hasn't done it's job. We probably disagree on why that is. But I don't think that justifies the POTUS stopping deportations by EO. If Eric Holder had been enforcing EXISTING laws since he has ben AG the number of illegals we have to deal with would be far less.

I am not trying to justify anything, just pointing out that if you don't do your job, someone else is likely to do it and you won't like it. Again, I don't think I am for an EO, but Congress has to look in the mirror. The Senate did their job... we are still waiting on Speaker Boehner and crew to put some bills behind the rhetoric.

If they were doing their job they would craft a bipartisan package. The Senate did their "job" but it is one sided. The House would do the same thing. DC is broken and the President is a big part of the equation.

The Constitution be damned since no one is doing their job(s)? Unbelievable.

The House has been overcome with correspondence from their constituents urging resistance to this president using EO on immigration. I know that for a fact since I am one of them and am being advised by those organizing that effort. If that is not doing their job I hope they continue not to because in this system, the govt governs at the consent of the governed...like it or not.

[autigeremt 6,598]

RIR......the question is very clear so need to say "if."

channoc......I agree with you that Congress hasn't done it's job. We probably disagree on why that is. But I don't think that justifies the POTUS stopping deportations by EO. If Eric Holder had been enforcing EXISTING laws since he has ben AG the number of illegals we have to deal with would be far less.

I am not trying to justify anything, just pointing out that if you don't do your job, someone else is likely to do it and you won't like it. Again, I don't think I am for an EO, but Congress has to look in the mirror. The Senate did their job... we are still waiting on Speaker Boehner and crew to put some bills behind the rhetoric.

If they were doing their job they would craft a bipartisan package. The Senate did their "job" but it is one sided. The House would do the same thing. DC is broken and the President is a big part of the equation.

The Constitution be damned since no one is doing their job(s)? Unbelievable.

The House has been overcome with correspondence from their constituents urging resistance to this president using EO on immigration. I know that for a fact since I am one of them and am being advised by those organizing that effort. If that is not doing their job I hope they continue not to because in this system, the govt governs at the consent of the governed...like it or not.

I'm not in favor of EO on this so I like the fire wall....on Constitutional grounds alone.

[RunInRed 16,385]

If the question is: Am I in favor of an EO to thaw the gridlock in Congress? ... Then the answer is emphatically, YES ... they've been sitting on Immigration Reform for at least 2 years.

I don't support the continued skirting of the Constitution......gridlock or not. You wouldn't support it if a Republican was in the White House.....

Why is too much to ask the Congress to do their job? Again, they've been sitting on this for two years.

At the end of the day, I think the POTUS is simply leaning on (the threat of) an EO as an unfortunate necessity to spur action from a do-nothing Congress ... again, I agree it's not a preferred way to legislate.

[cooltigger21 0]

If the question is: Am I in favor of an EO to thaw the gridlock in Congress? ... Then the answer is emphatically, YES ... they've been sitting on Immigration Reform for at least 2 years.

I don't support the continued skirting of the Constitution......gridlock or not. You wouldn't support it if a Republican was in the White House.....

Why is too much to ask the Congress to do their job? Again, they've been sitting on this for two years.

At the end of the day, I think the POTUS is simply leaning on (the threat of) an EO as an unfortunate necessity to spur action from a do-nothing Congress ... again, I agree it's not a preferred way to legislate.

If this president had not encouraged a whole wave of illegals and if he could be trusted to enforce the security provisions of any bill that came up then Congress might have acted. He had two years with democrats holding a 60 seat majority in the Senate and a majority in the house. Why didn't they do it then? He really doesn't care if a bill gets passed or not. He'd just as soon have the political tool. I actually think he's trying to goad Congress into doing something like try to impeach or something like that so he can use it as a political hammer against them for the next two years.

[TheBlueVue 177]

If the question is: Am I in favor of an EO to thaw the gridlock in Congress? ... Then the answer is emphatically, YES ... they've been sitting on Immigration Reform for at least 2 years.

I don't support the continued skirting of the Constitution......gridlock or not. You wouldn't support it if a Republican was in the White House.....

Why is too much to ask the Congress to do their job? Again, they've been sitting on this for two years.

At the end of the day, I think the POTUS is simply leaning on (the threat of) an EO as an unfortunate necessity to spur action from a do-nothing Congress ... again, I agree it's not a preferred way to legislate.

LOL...thats all. I love how the President's word on this has been taken as if it is the absolute truth. The republicans are NOT there as the opposition party to be a rubber stamp for a President to enact laws they are philosophically against....period!

[channonc 466]

If the question is: Am I in favor of an EO to thaw the gridlock in Congress? ... Then the answer is emphatically, YES ... they've been sitting on Immigration Reform for at least 2 years.

I don't support the continued skirting of the Constitution......gridlock or not. You wouldn't support it if a Republican was in the White House.....

Why is too much to ask the Congress to do their job? Again, they've been sitting on this for two years.

At the end of the day, I think the POTUS is simply leaning on (the threat of) an EO as an unfortunate necessity to spur action from a do-nothing Congress ... again, I agree it's not a preferred way to legislate.

Thanks RIR. All of these excuses for not acting on immigration reform-- which by the way businesses are in desperate need for. The Senate acted. The House should either put out their own proposal, amend the Senate version or admit to the American public that they have no interest in tackling this problem which goes beyond just secure borders.

[channonc 466]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

[TheBlueVue 177]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

Not the case at all. Pres has discretionary funding that he can use for his pet projects. The ONLY time the purse strings can be tightened is when budgets are being considered. Its actually pretty funny how hellbent you are on oversimplifying this as a failure of Congress to do their jobs. You do realize that the House of Reps is the people's House, right? Do you think there is even a remote possibility they are simply listening to their constituents? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty especially if the path is made clear by the Pres acting on his own.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Keep in mind this could be "temporary", as the next President may decide to pull the EO.

Personally I do not agree with the approach but a lot of Americans see the Constitution outdated and cumbersome and could care less what a president does.

[channonc 466]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

Not the case at all. Pres has discretionary funding that he can use for his pet projects. The ONLY time the purse strings can be tightened is when budgets are being considered. Its actually pretty funny how hellbent you are on oversimplifying this as a failure of Congress to do their jobs. You do realize that the House of Reps is the people's House, right? Do you think there is even a remote possibility they are simply listening to their constituents? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty especially if the path is made clear by the Pres acting on his own.

A House bill doesn't have to include amnesty. Again, what is their proposal for solving this issue? So far, they have put forth nothing.

[TheBlueVue 177]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

Not the case at all. Pres has discretionary funding that he can use for his pet projects. The ONLY time the purse strings can be tightened is when budgets are being considered. Its actually pretty funny how hellbent you are on oversimplifying this as a failure of Congress to do their jobs. You do realize that the House of Reps is the people's House, right? Do you think there is even a remote possibility they are simply listening to their constituents? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty especially if the path is made clear by the Pres acting on his own.

A House bill doesn't have to include amnesty. Again, what is their proposal for solving this issue? So far, they have put forth nothing.

.

That is also false. They sent a bill over that the Senate gutted and passed something altogether different. I wish the problem was a simple as you insist that it is. Politics makes things more complicated especially when there is a President who is seemingly more interested in picking a fight than he is interested in really solving the problem.

While it is true that a House bill doesn't technically have to include amnesty, you do realize that Obama would not sign that right? Amnesty is THE thing that Obama wants above all else. Sending him a bill w/o including that has about as much chance as a snowball does in hell.

[cooltigger21 0]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

No not hardly. They can withhold funds but that still doesn't make him enforce a law he doesn't want to. Withholding funds only prevents him from taking an action to do something. Not enforcing a law just simply means you do nothing and doing nothing requires no money.

[channonc 466]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

No not hardly. They can withhold funds but that still doesn't make him enforce a law he doesn't want to. Withholding funds only prevents him from taking an action to do something. Not enforcing a law just simply means you do nothing and doing nothing requires no money.

I don't want to bore you with facts, but honestly, I helped write legislation and helped work on ways to reign in an Administration and force them to act. It CAN be done. You have to WANT TO DO IT, not just talk about it.

[channonc 466]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

Not the case at all. Pres has discretionary funding that he can use for his pet projects. The ONLY time the purse strings can be tightened is when budgets are being considered. Its actually pretty funny how hellbent you are on oversimplifying this as a failure of Congress to do their jobs. You do realize that the House of Reps is the people's House, right? Do you think there is even a remote possibility they are simply listening to their constituents? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty especially if the path is made clear by the Pres acting on his own.

A House bill doesn't have to include amnesty. Again, what is their proposal for solving this issue? So far, they have put forth nothing.

.

That is also false. They sent a bill over that the Senate gutted and passed something altogether different. I wish the problem was a simple as you insist that it is. Politics makes things more complicated especially when there is a President who is seemingly more interested in picking a fight than he is interested in really solving the problem.

While it is true that a House bill doesn't technically have to include amnesty, you do realize that Obama would not sign that right? Amnesty is THE thing that Obama wants above all else. Sending him a bill w/o including that has about as much chance as a snowball does in hell.

So because there may be a veto threat there is no point in trying. What about all those other bills you guys say are sitting on Reid's desk? You can't have it both ways on this.

[cooltigger21 0]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

No not hardly. They can withhold funds but that still doesn't make him enforce a law he doesn't want to. Withholding funds only prevents him from taking an action to do something. Not enforcing a law just simply means you do nothing and doing nothing requires no money.

I don't want to bore you with facts, but honestly, I helped write legislation and helped work on ways to reign in an Administration and force them to act. It CAN be done. You have to WANT TO DO IT, not just talk about it.

You are missing one key fact. This administration doesn't care about that. They ignore laws and the constitution on a daily basis.

[channonc 466]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

No not hardly. They can withhold funds but that still doesn't make him enforce a law he doesn't want to. Withholding funds only prevents him from taking an action to do something. Not enforcing a law just simply means you do nothing and doing nothing requires no money.

I don't want to bore you with facts, but honestly, I helped write legislation and helped work on ways to reign in an Administration and force them to act. It CAN be done. You have to WANT TO DO IT, not just talk about it.

You are missing one key fact. This administration doesn't care about that. They ignore laws and the constitution on a daily basis.

Thanks for confirming that you are more interested in playing the victim than finding real solutions.

[cooltigger21 0]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

No not hardly. They can withhold funds but that still doesn't make him enforce a law he doesn't want to. Withholding funds only prevents him from taking an action to do something. Not enforcing a law just simply means you do nothing and doing nothing requires no money.

I don't want to bore you with facts, but honestly, I helped write legislation and helped work on ways to reign in an Administration and force them to act. It CAN be done. You have to WANT TO DO IT, not just talk about it.

You are missing one key fact. This administration doesn't care about that. They ignore laws and the constitution on a daily basis.

Thanks for confirming that you are more interested in playing the victim than finding real solutions.

Show me how you can force this administration to enforce a law he doesn't want to. If you can do that then I'll be fully on board.

[AUUSN 823]

Congress did try to wield the power of the purse through:

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013, H.R. 5855, as passed by the House, §581(a),

113th Cong. (“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce

the ‘Morton Memos.’”).

But of course it didnt make it through the Senate.

The Executive Branch does have 'prosecutorial discretion' as it pertains to INA. Have they taken it too far? That's for a court to decide.

[TheBlueVue 177]

You HAVE to start with enforcing the law. It's that simple. While you are enforcing the law it is perfectly fine to work to change the law. There can be no good-faith negotiotiations if one side is going to refuse to enforce the current law while attempting to get the law changed. I truly think that for the most part, both sides want the same thing--Streamline the process for legal immigration, let in as many immigrants as possible who are good for the country, keep out potential immigrants who are bad for the country. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but it all starts with enforcing the law.

There are ways Congress can make the Admin enforce the law. This is just political speak. Give me a real reason for the delay in legislation.

Give me a reason why we have to do this now? That is the question at hand. How is delaying this hurting these people? Can Congress force the president to enforce the law? The only power they have is to either impeach or use the power of the purse to hold back funds but that still doesn't force him to take the handcuffs off of the agencies charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Holding funds or putting tight strings on dollars given happens all the time. It's part of the checks and balances. So yes, Congress can force the Administration to lots of things on border security. Again, failure on Congress's part.

Not the case at all. Pres has discretionary funding that he can use for his pet projects. The ONLY time the purse strings can be tightened is when budgets are being considered. Its actually pretty funny how hellbent you are on oversimplifying this as a failure of Congress to do their jobs. You do realize that the House of Reps is the people's House, right? Do you think there is even a remote possibility they are simply listening to their constituents? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty especially if the path is made clear by the Pres acting on his own.

A House bill doesn't have to include amnesty. Again, what is their proposal for solving this issue? So far, they have put forth nothing.

.

That is also false. They sent a bill over that the Senate gutted and passed something altogether different. I wish the problem was a simple as you insist that it is. Politics makes things more complicated especially when there is a President who is seemingly more interested in picking a fight than he is interested in really solving the problem.

While it is true that a House bill doesn't technically have to include amnesty, you do realize that Obama would not sign that right? Amnesty is THE thing that Obama wants above all else. Sending him a bill w/o including that has about as much chance as a snowball does in hell.

So because there may be a veto threat there is no point in trying. What about all those other bills you guys say are sitting on Reid's desk? You can't have it both ways on this.

Your arguments sound like Im arguing with a 3 year old. Its politics, bud. You said above you wrote legislation but your arguments hardly sound like those of an experienced legislator. This is an issue because Obama is being influenced by LaRaza to put this on the hurry up. Clearly, you support Obama and thats fine but ignoring the realities of the situation isn't very convincing.

BTW, aren't you the guy who insisted that the XL Keystone Pipeline had already been passed? Apparently, nobody in Washington got your memo because looks like it is going to come up "again". There are over 300 bills that Harry Reid has not allowed to come up for a vote whether you accept that or not doesn't change the facts.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Maybe channonc would like to take a stab at explaining Obama's own reversal on his stance on immigration reform:

http://www.nytimes.c...tance.html?_r=1

For years, the president has repeatedly waved aside the demands of Latino activists and Democratic allies who begged him to take action on his own, and he insisted publicly that a decision to shield millions of immigrants from deportation without an act of Congress would amount to nothing less than the dictates of a king, not a president.