On like Donkey Kong: Obama Said to Plan Moves to Shield 5 Million Immigrants

Not sure where to start with this. Anyway stop making fun of Rockets legend Calvin Murphy.

Makes u look like a total dick.

 

I think affirmative action type laws and Ferguson type incidents show that there is still much racial tension.

Stawman.

Strawman.

Strawman.

 

I assume CM had the money to support his offspring.
Not that would have mattered/changed things.

Really though - if you are poor - why keep having more children?
God will provide? Paid for by the USA.

It's pretty galling - come to this country as a poor "guest" - and have ten children.

Thinking the Norte Americanos would not notice? We noticed.

That is just one thing that drew the public eye to the illegal immigration issue. Just too many - too hard to ignore the ramifications.

 

Ever been to Utah? Haha...

 

Check this out:

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/children-by-raceethnicity

White, black, hispanic;

Texas; no N/A
Utah; Black - N/A
Vermont; Hispanic - N/A

 

Slap in the face to legal immigrants, labor unions, the unemployed citizens, the voters who just rejected this approach, and the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers. This sets a very dangerous precedent. A geographic area without secure borders is not a sovereign nation. All South American countries are fanatical about border security and enforcing their immigration rules.

 

My take:

First: This problem is the collective failure of Presidents and congresses going back decades. Lack of desire/commitment to actually seal our border has caused this problem.

Second: Much of what I heard Obama proposes actually makes sense. And I agree we have to use common sense action to deal with the reality of the situation instead of burying our heads in the sand. Republicans certainly share the blame. But listening to his half truths as he tries to justify this action makes me extremely mistrustful. Not all of us are "stupid" as Gruber would say.

Third: It really bothers me that we have decided to allow "law breakers" to get a blanket amnesty because of the scope of the problem. I realize my being bothered makes no difference, but I know that a huge portion of the american people (probably the majority) feels the same way.

Fourth (and most disturbing to me): The President is by his own previous admissions (many on videotape) violating the constitution by taking current law and "changing" it simply by enforcing it in a way that may or may not be ruled legal by a future Supreme Court.

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court does or doesn't, one thing seems certain. He is (attempting) to establish a precedent that will certainly create further division in this country and more importantly gives the Executive branch more power...perhaps more than the founders intended. This should be a troubling thought for any American who fears a government with too much power in the hands of one man.

 

This essentially is a LIE.

The following is an excerpt from a National Journal interview of Mitch Mcconnell in 2010 following Obama's (his own words here) "Shellacking" in the mid-terms.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/pelosi-stretches-an-old-mcconnell-quote/

 

Except that contradicts the GOP's actual actions. For example, members saying they would oppose health care reform and FinReg and other such things *before any bill was ever written*. If you're not going to vote for ANYTHING that is proposed, then you're not willing to meet anyone halfway, less alone move your position at all. Republicans demonstrated over and over that they weren't willing to meet Obama on anything. They even shot themselves in the foot in order to do so on taxes as well as the debt. They couldn't accept voting for a tax increase for the highest bracket even though those taxes were going to go up anyway by not doing anything. They also couldn't come up with ANY debt ceiling bill on their own. In both cases, Obama was willing to give them things - but they refused because their own caucus couldn't functionally accept compromise. Instead, both issues passed with a few Republicans and mostly Democrats. This has happened over and over - immigration reform is another great example. The Senate created a compromise bill with bipartisan support. It wasn't Obama's ideal bill, but he accepted it - ie, moved halfway. But the House GOP wouldn't vote on it and couldn't even come up with anything else. So let's stop pretendling like Obama is the one that needed to compromise.

Besides, where was the GOP's willingness to move towards Obama after the GOP shellackings in 2008 and 2012? It seems that logic only applies when the GOP wins midterms, for some odd reason.

 

Sorry - above I meant the government funding bill that led to the shutdown, not the debt ceiling.

 

All true. Kind of like Harry Reid not allowing House Bills to come to a vote in the Senate. Right? Its political gamesmanship and both parties do it and have done it for centuries now.

Where was the need in 2008? Dems had control of both houses in 2008 and didn't get it done then either. In 2012, its hard to call it a shellacking when control of all portions of the government stayed the same including the House. So, no...I don't accept your version of what happened in 2008 or 2012. Politics is the game of gamesmanship. Governing is the game of compromise with the President owning the results. You don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is and has always been.

 

Absolutely - but those bills didn't come with bipartisan support in the House. And Dems aren't throwing a hissyfit about the other party taking unilateral action without them. The Senate immigation bill would have passed the House by all accounts and become law - the GOP leadership just didn't want it to. The GOP had a chance to participate - they declined. They made a political decision to use their power to obstruct instead. So Obama made a political decision to use his power to go around them and do what he can on his own. It leads to bad government, but it's the reality of what happens when one party refuses to participate.

That's awfully convenient. In 2008, the Dems *did* get it done. Remember Obamacare? Stimulus? FinReg? The GOP still thought it was their job to simply oppose the Dem agenda despite it being overwhelmingly approved at the polls. If losing ALL branches of government isn't a single to compromise, why would losing 1 or 2 be? In 2012, the GOP did maintain control of the House - despite more people voting for Dem house members than GOP ones. It was purely an effect of gerrymandering. That said, if retaining the House is reason not to compromise, then why isn't retaining the Presidency?

You're works the facts around how you want to answer to work out, but it doesn't work that way.

 

Couldn't agree more. Astute assessment. My only issue with this statement is your apparent willingness to go along with Obama's decision to become a lawmaker himself. While you and I would probably find many things immigration wise we could agree upon, this new precedent he is trying to set is dangerous. And it only invites future President's to try it as well....maybe on something none of us want. To me, this is by far the most critical (dangerous?) thing happening in all of this.

Interesting in a discussion of Immigration you fail to stay on topic with regards to the failure of the Democrats to get a bill passed when they controlled the entire government from 2008-2010. Yes the Democrats got stuff done during that time period...just not immigration, the topic of discussion. That is their failure.

Meanwhile, Obama selects the time after the election and before the new congress even convenes as his time to push this. If it was so urgent, why now? Its a completely political move. Its a sign he has no desire to try to work with the congress. He knows any potential immigration bill he gets in 2015 won't do most of what he wants. So he acts on his own. Its obvious and dangerous.

As far as your opinion of Republicans obstructionism, I am not going to and never have defended them for this. I simply state that they were answering to the voters from their districts that elected them. Their constituents want them to slow Democrats and Obama down and they have. Nothing that hasn't been done since the dawn of the republic. You don't have to like it and I would agree they ALL (Dems and Reps) need to get their heads out of their asses....but Obama just gave them and the public that voted them in to office the finger. He's essentially saying...I don't care what Congress wants or the people that put them there. I'm doing this myself.

Not the way to end gridlock. In fact it just made it worse.

 

I've really yet to look into much of the details of his plan...but from first glance, it doesn't seem all that controversial. Did anyone really think we were going to deport all these people? Not when politics are involved. Prioritizing felons over families is obviously what should have already been the policy, if it wasn't already. It doesn't give them a path to citizenship.

Note: I am a Republican, and staunchly opposed to amnesty. I got the impression Obama was going to try and go much further, perhaps he will try again later? But this, from what I can tell, doesn't seem like an atrocious over-stepping of authority.

 

he has no authority to issue work permits, SSNs, driver's licences to illegals

Obama said so himself more than a dozen times.

 

Illegal Immigration - A Situation that is TOO BIG to govern? TOO BIG to enforce

Sounds similar to how we dealt with the industries/banks that *****ed the country pretty hard
They were TOO BIG TO FAIL . . . . .

Fed Government is suppose to HANDLE BIG
State suppose to handle NO SO BIG

so . . .I can understand the states thinking that they should handle things before they get TOO BIG for the Fed

our Government systems is becoming unmanageable?

Rocket River

 

Obama does have the authority to take executive action to issue work authorization. "[T]he INA grants the Executive broad discretion to provide certain forms of relief or benefits (e.g., work authorization or temporary protected status) to foreign
nationals". Here is the kicker and the part that probably confuses a lot of people - it is very like true that he does not have the power to grant work authorization to "illegals," but the executive branch enjoys wide authority to grant work authorization to people who it gives some sort of designation (e.g. DACA, TPS, deferred enforced departure, snitches, certain parolees, and people under orders of supervision).

He does not have authority to issue driver's license as that is up to the many states. Here is a list of states which have passed laws specifically allowing or disallowing driver's licenses for people who received DACA for example. In most states, Texas included, absent a law to the contrary someone with valid work authorization can acquire a driver's license.

I'm moderately sure that he does not have the authority to issue SSNs, but the Social Security Administration does have the authority to issue SSNs to people with valid work authorization. I can't find any sources for sole executive authority unilaterally to issue SSNs to those lacking any sort of lawful or temporary status without valid work authorization.

Obama is a politician. He, like all the rest, obfuscates and clouds the issues to create plausible deniability. It is our duty as citizens and the duty of civil society, including the media to read up on the subject ourselves and go beyond their words to understand how true certain statements are and how far that truth extends.

 

Ah, see I hadn't looked into it and the only articles I had read didn't go into that detail -- just mentioned the families being prioritized and the fact that there was no path to citizenship.

 

If you look at sources on the left, you will not likely hear much about the constitutionality of the actions he will be taking as the strategy on the left is to focus on the people benefitting. If you look at sources on the right, concerns over constitutionality might be all you will hear about as people on the right wish challenge what the president will be doing in the courts rather than pass a law expressly preventing him from pursuing an executive action because the optics would be bad. I would strongly recommend looking at more neutral sources like the Congressional Research Service if you want a frank discussion of the constitutionality of his action.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43782.pdf