Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

[BoberFett]

Get a clue conservatives and this is the bottom line. Sending all illegals home and sealing the borders is not and never will be your immigration bill. End of story. Now move on from there.

LOL, "liberals".

Government can do anything. In fact, it should do everything.

Provide healthcare.

Manage our retirement.

Enforce our borders. No, that's too hard.

LOL, "liberals".

 

[Zaap]

Get a clue conservatives and this is the bottom line. Sending all illegals home and sealing the borders is not and never will be your immigration bill. End of story. Now move on from there.

Get a clue liberals. None of that needs to be in any immigration bill. Just logical enforcement of existing immigration laws, punishment for employers caught hiring illegally being risky enough to where it's no longer a sane business move, and more logical border protection. Same as other countries do.

 

[werepossum]

Immigration laws are not broken, the government lacks the will to enforce the law. Spouses of American citizens have to wait 18 months to 2 years to secure a immigration visa/green card. The borders need to be secured and illegals crossing the borders should be turned back immediately.

This, exactly, and well said.

If immigration reform is such an important thing to the folks on the right...why the fuck didn't they do something about it during the Bush administration when they held a (slight) majority in both houses of Congress?

Because there is no agreement on the right. A clear majority of Americans want the current immigration laws enforced, but the GOP leadership wants to provide cheaper labor for business (by increasing its labor supply) and also wants to woo the Hispanic vote with amnesty. For most GOP Congresscritters, voting for amnesty means early retirement, but voting against amnesty means fewer campaign dollars and possibly fewer Hispanic votes. (Assuming you buy the notion that Hispanics whose main concern is importing as many Hispanic illegals as possible would ever vote Republican.)

why didn't the democrats?

Why wait until you lose both houses to play king?

Same reasons. A clear majority of Americans want the current immigration laws enforced, but the Democrat leadership wants more poor, illiterate Hispanics voting and doing their menial tasks cheaply. For many Democrat Congresscritters, voting for amnesty means early retirement, but voting against amnesty means fewer Hispanic votes both now (Hispanic voters whose main concern is importing as many Hispanic illegals as possible probably won't ever vote Republican, but they can just not vote) and in the future. Thus, voting to implement immigration "reform" as Obama wants it is a losing proposition for Congresscritters of both stripes even if it's a net boon to the Democrats. This is why the issue was never raised when the Dems had an absolutely ability to pass anything they wished.

Of course, that is no justification for Obama's declaring that I've waited long enough for you to do what I want, so now I get to take your power for myself. But he knows that zero Democrat Senators will vote to remove him, that impeachment is a losing proposition politically for the GOP because the Dems own the press, that SCOTUS might well not take up a challenge to his actions at all, and that even if the courts overturn his actions there will be no downside to him personally.

 

[IronWing]

Of course, that is no justification for Obama's declaring that I've waited long enough for you to do what I want, so now I get to take your power for myself. But he knows that zero Democrat Senators will vote to remove him, that impeachment is a losing proposition politically for the GOP because the Dems own the press, that SCOTUS might well not take up a challenge to his actions at all, and that even if the courts overturn his actions there will be no downside to him personally.

You're working on the assumption that Obama intends to do something illegal. Since he hasn't issued an order yet, that is mere speculation.

 

[theeedude]

What's GOP going to do about it? Throw a tantrum, that's about it. Their base will kick and scream, that's their problem.

 

[fskimospy]

This, exactly, and well said.

Because there is no agreement on the right. A clear majority of Americans want the current immigration laws enforced, but the GOP leadership wants to provide cheaper labor for business (by increasing its labor supply) and also wants to woo the Hispanic vote with amnesty. For most GOP Congresscritters, voting for amnesty means early retirement, but voting against amnesty means fewer campaign dollars and possibly fewer Hispanic votes. (Assuming you buy the notion that Hispanics whose main concern is importing as many Hispanic illegals as possible would ever vote Republican.)

Same reasons. A clear majority of Americans want the current immigration laws enforced, but the Democrat leadership wants more poor, illiterate Hispanics voting and doing their menial tasks cheaply. For many Democrat Congresscritters, voting for amnesty means early retirement, but voting against amnesty means fewer Hispanic votes both now (Hispanic voters whose main concern is importing as many Hispanic illegals as possible probably won't ever vote Republican, but they can just not vote) and in the future. Thus, voting to implement immigration "reform" as Obama wants it is a losing proposition for Congresscritters of both stripes even if it's a net boon to the Democrats. This is why the issue was never raised when the Dems had an absolutely ability to pass anything they wished.

Of course, that is no justification for Obama's declaring that I've waited long enough for you to do what I want, so now I get to take your power for myself. But he knows that zero Democrat Senators will vote to remove him, that impeachment is a losing proposition politically for the GOP because the Dems own the press, that SCOTUS might well not take up a challenge to his actions at all, and that even if the courts overturn his actions there will be no downside to him personally.

You realize a majority of US voters support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, right?

It's funny to see you try and spin this.

 

[Atreus21]

To the extent that the President can sign lawful orders there is no reason to not sign away. If Congress doesn't like the President signing lawful orders Congress is free to attempt to change the law. The President can dismiss the whining of lawmakers who will not put pen to paper and craft legislation.

Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean it's not outrageous. Look at the quoted article I posted above. A judge can lawfully hand a 20 year sentence to a kid for holding a marijuana cigarette. It's within his legal power to do so, but he's not a good judge if he does.

That's precisely what impeachment was intended to curb.

 

[werepossum]

You're working on the assumption that Obama intends to do something illegal. Since he hasn't issued an order yet, that is mere speculation.

That's true. It's always risky to believe what a politician says he's going to do.

You realize a majority of US voters support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, right?

It's funny to see you try and spin this.

You find a lot of things funny. You might want to speak with your doctors about reducing your meds.

 

[fskimospy]

You find a lot of things funny. You might want to speak with your doctors about reducing your meds.

I would think you would be happy to know that I find so many of the things you think humorous. It's that perfect mixture of confidence and ignorance.

 

[Zaap]

I would think you would be happy to know that I find so many of the things you think humorous. It's that perfect mixture of confidence and ignorance.

Haha! What's funny is the second part of this is probably the most honest statement you've ever made here, but I'm guessing you probably thought it read as applying to other than yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Haha! What's funny is the second part of this is probably the most honest statement you've ever made here, but I'm guessing you probably thought it read as applying to other than yourself.

Oh, it applies quite well to you too.

 

[Zaap]

Yep, you didn't realize what you typed.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, you didn't realize what you typed.

The only difference between your ignorance/confidence nexus and werepossum's is that you're slightly more abrasive about the whole thing. You're both walking expressions of the dunning-kruger effect.

 

[OutHouse]

Isnt it a violation of obamas oath of office and constitution to make up laws?

 

[Zaap]

blather

Give up. You stuck your foot in your mouth and inadvertently said something truthful about yourself, and now are just trying to do your usual spinning your way out of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Give up. You stuck your foot in your mouth and inadvertently said something truthful about yourself, and now are just trying to do your usual spinning your way out of it.

I definitely didn't stick my foot in my mouth. I think you seem to think that quoting your post meant agreeing with it?

Like I said, you're one of those people who is too stupid to understand the depths of their own stupidity.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, it applies quite well to you too.

Yes, yes, you've made quite apparent your intolerance of anyone not marching in lockstep with your narrowly defined far left views. We get it, you're a general expert, a legend in your own mind, with all the arrogance due one of your munificence, and anyone daring to disagree (or agree with less than rabid allegiance) is a wild-eyed conspiracy nut. Perhaps instead of merely once again telling us this, you could share an empirical study showing how 9-11 proves we can't stop illegal immigration so we should embrace it. Those are always fun for everyone.

 

[Zaap]

emo rage

^ I can just imagine all the spit all over your screen as you spin like top trying to backpeddal! Hilarious!

Anyway I shouldn't pick on you, don't want you to blow a gasket.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, yes, you've made quite apparent your intolerance of anyone not marching in lockstep with your narrowly defined far left views. We get it, you're a general expert, a legend in your own mind, with all the arrogance due one of your munificence, and anyone daring to disagree (or agree with less than rabid allegiance) is a wild-eyed conspiracy nut. Perhaps instead of merely once again telling us this, you could share an empirical study showing how 9-11 proves we can't stop illegal immigration so we should embrace it. Those are always fun for everyone.

lol. Not everyone is a conspiracy nut like you.

I don't care if you disagree with me, but you can't expect me not to make fun of someone who so confidently declares conspiracy after conspiracy against you. I still remember when you declared the economics articles on Wikipedia a liberal conspiracy. That was maybe my favorite post of yours.

 

[ivwshane]

When a Democrats wins during low turnout, it's a mandate. Republicans, it's a sign that Americans want Republicans to pass progressive policies. Or something.

This forum is We Todd Ed.

That's a good one! The facts don't agree with you but that's never stopped you before.

Fact: voter turnout was low.
Fact: only about ~22 million out of ~76 million voters voted for republicans.
Fact: liberal causes were passed in the same states that voted for republicans (pot, minimum wage, and a personhood proposition was defeated).
Fact: dems ran away from Obama.

But go ahead with your false equivalencies.

 

[IronWing]

Isnt it a violation of obamas oath of office and constitution to make up laws?

It would be if that is what he chooses to do. Right now, it is mere speculation from rightwing hacks that Obama intends to violate the Constitution in this matter.

 

[Matt1970]

You realize a majority of US voters support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, right?

It's funny to see you try and spin this.

So now we want to start doing what the majority of the people want?

 

[fskimospy]

So now we want to start doing what the majority of the people want?

Not necessarily, but he invoked what the majority of Americans wanted repeatedly in order to justify his preferred action. Seems like that would go for "amnesty" as well then, right?

 

[hal2kilo]

Get a clue liberals. None of that needs to be in any immigration bill. Just logical enforcement of existing immigration laws, punishment for employers caught hiring illegally being risky enough to where it's no longer a sane business move, and more logical border protection. Same as other countries do.

Once again read the bipartisan bill waiting to be passed in thje Senate, it,s all in there, whether you believe it or not.

 

[hal2kilo]

LOL, "liberals".

Government can do anything. In fact, it should do everything.

Provide healthcare.

Manage our retirement.

Enforce our borders. No, that's too hard.

LOL, "liberals".

Managing and sealing are 2 distinctly different things.