Obama Executive Order

[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.

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.

It was voted on before and now it's coming up again...

Again, all you have is talking points and no substance. Let me know when you actually want to have a meaningful discussion and not one based on rhetoric.

[channonc 466]

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.

So when you can't fight with facts we just change the subject. I see that's a pattern with you.

[AUtiger98 24]

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.

So when you can't fight with facts we just change the subject. I see that's a pattern with you.

Look like immigration to me.

[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.

So when you can't fight with facts we just change the subject. I see that's a pattern with you.

WTF? The discussion here is Obama using an EO to grant illegal aliens amnesty. Try to keep up bud. This is something he has said he could not legally do for years but now that the election is over he sees no political liability in going it on his own. This isn't about rhetoric, this about him breaking the law to have his way. He "evolved" again like he does on everything.

[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.

It was voted on before and now it's coming up again...

Again, all you have is talking points and no substance. Let me know when you actually want to have a meaningful discussion and not one based on rhetoric.

Its NEVER been voted on in the Senate kemosabe but now that La senator Ms Piggy needs it to save her seat, Harry Reid is considering letting it come up for a vote.

[autigeremt 6,599]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Time out everybody. channoc is a lady who has served on the staff of a US Senator. She and I don't always agree but we are friends here. So disagree but be civil and show some respect.

[cooltigger21 0]

Any so called comprehensive immigration law is a promise of border security tomorrow for amnesty today. It reminds me of Wimpy in the old Popeye cartoons. He wanted a hamburger today for which he would gladly pay you tomorrow. I don't think he's paid for that hamburger yet.

[homersapien 11,367]

When all is said and done, the Republicans will eventually support some sort of program to allow the people at issue to become citizens.

Meanwhile, they just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot over it, thanks largely to their ultra-conservative wing.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ct......you date yourself. I bet few here even know who Wimpy is

[autigeremt 6,599]

When all is said and done, the Republicans will eventually support some sort of program to allow the people at issue to become citizens.

Meanwhile, they just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot over it, thanks largely to their ultra-conservative wing.

You mean the COTUS.... LOL

GWB tried to get it taken care of. I guess he's not entitled to garner support for his work by the ultra left?

[cooltigger21 0]

When all is said and done, the Republicans will eventually support some sort of program to allow the people at issue to become citizens.

Meanwhile, they just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot over it, thanks largely to their ultra-conservative wing.

We "ultra-conservatives" will be happy to deal with the ones that are already here AFTER we get control of our borders. We have learned through past experience that trying to do everything at one time always leads to the amnesty but no security. Securing the border is the last thing the establishment republicans and the democrats want to see happen. One wants the cheap labor and the other wants the permanent underclass for voters.

[TheBlueVue 177]

When all is said and done, the Republicans will eventually support some sort of program to allow the people at issue to become citizens.

Meanwhile, they just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot over it, thanks largely to their ultra-conservative wing.

We "ultra-conservatives" will be happy to deal with the ones that are already here AFTER we get control of our borders. We have learned through past experience that trying to do everything at one time always leads to the amnesty but no security. Securing the border is the last thing the establishment republicans and the democrats want to see happen. One wants the cheap labor and the other wants the permanent underclass for voters.

Yep, I agree. On substance i have no problem with legislation that allows families to remain together instead of being deported and an attendant pathway to citizenship provision. I do however, have a very big problem with a President who subverts the Constitution because of his impatience and usurps powers that by law are granted to Congress. By the numbers, the open border problem must be remedied first, then the rest can be worked through. I honestly believe that most conservatives are getting behind that idea but the democrats will never go along with that.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

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.

It was voted on before and now it's coming up again...

Again, all you have is talking points and no substance. Let me know when you actually want to have a meaningful discussion and not one based on rhetoric.

Its NEVER been voted on in the Senate kemosabe but now that La senator Ms Piggy needs it to save her seat, Harry Reid is considering letting it come up for a vote.

Stay classy, Blue!

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

The new banana republic is here, I hope the Republicans keep their promise and stop this illegal action with any means necessary.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

The new banana republic is here, I hope the Republicans keep their promise and stop this illegal action with any means necessary.

Lighten up Francis !

[Elephant Tipper 430]

It's good to be the king ! Here comes unanimous Supreme Court rejection #14.....oops !

[TexasTiger 12,835]

It's good to be the king ! Here comes unanimous Supreme Court rejection #14.....oops !

Bring it on!!

[AUUSN 823]

Politicians have the public up in arms serving their base. Meanwhile, behind the scenes...

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

The Federalist Papers should be a required read for everyone in Washington.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

It's good to be the king ! Here comes unanimous Supreme Court rejection #14.....oops !

Bring it on!!

It won't be me bringing it on. It'll be ...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia,

and John Roberts for unanimous defeat #14.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

The Federalist Papers should be a required read for everyone in Washington.

While I agree with you whole heartedly, I believe you'll have this generation thinking you're offering some new type of rolling papers.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Now Obama is quoting scripture. The most secular non believer who ever sat in the White House is suddenly using scripture to sell his executive order on immigration reform. Seems kind of cynical to me and leads me to believe all he wants to do is incite a republican meltdown and a self destruction that benefits the democrats in '16 and beyond. Excuse me for not believing he gives 2 sh**s about immigrants because if this was such an urgent spiritual issue he would have addressed it when he had a super majority in Congress 2009 and 10.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Now Obama is quoting scripture.

Didn't he pass a law banning public officials from doing that ?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Barry, Barry, he's your man, if he can't do it......well, how 'bout executive fiat then ?