Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

[Moonbeam]

according to Obama, Obama is breaking the law.


But we all know those were just political speeches, and dems can never be held accountable for what they say.

That must be why you always try to hold them accountable for things they don't say.

 

[ivwshane]

My LBD prevents me from recognizing all hope is lost

I offer solutions all the time, but there are none that appeal to the lLBD, the clinging to the hope that reason can win. If you are hell bent on going into the fire the only hope I can offer is to suggest that the path one is on leads nowhere. One has to embrace the hopelessness of the situation. It's the One Ring problem.

Do you use power to defeat evil and thereby become what you fear, a left wing authoritarian monsters, or do you let evil win. I suggest that the only solution there is is to leg go of the ring. Only you can be free. You can't save anybody else. And if you do let go that's one less person who is part of the problem. We are attached to the need for a solution and that is what binds us.

There is no hope. Only in a state of total surrender does the door that all our lives was pushed behind us reappear to the fore. Realization of the hopelessness of ego leads to a state of defeat that opens the door to the joy of being. We are all lost in the wilderness of delusions of ego and we are all the same. The 'other' is only denial projected. The left and the right are similar yet opposite manifestations of the duality created by the concept of evil. We all want to be on the side of the good and it is the will to good that creates the phenomenon of evil.

The world is perfect, and has always been so. Any step to fix it is a step in the wrong direction. Our job, as it were, is to learn how to love again as we were capable of as children.

I am a nobody but I say that the words that 'only a little child will enter the kingdom of heaven that is within us' is true.

This is what happens when all hope for anything ceases to be. That is why religion talks a lot about humility.

 

[Moonbeam]

My LBD prevents me from recognizing all hope is lost

Well you have definitely come to the right place to find out you are wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Has anyone yet cited the specific laws Obama allegedly violated, or linked to a credible legal analysis with this information? I see endless comments (here, and elsewhere) asserting he's breaking the law, but I've yet to see anything proving any specific actions exceed his authority.

 

[cabri]

Obama when sworn into office promised to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States.

He has deliberately not done so and circumvented those laws. both by Executive Order, public statements and direction to government agencies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama when sworn into office promised to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States.

He has deliberately not done so and circumvented those laws. both by Executive Order, public statements and direction to government agencies.

Could you possibly be a little more vague?

That's the beauty of empty right wing tropes- there's nothing there other than the ring of truthiness.

 

[First]

So what (if any) additional laws should Obama have the power to ignore? If we have illegals in custody and release them, that isn't "prioritizing" any more than rioters in Ferguson are prioritizing which laws they will honor, it's simply breaking the law. Should Obama then have the power to decide that, say, Hewlett Packard has to abide by treaties but his buddy's General Electric does not? Should Obama have the power to dictate that Sharpton doesn't have to pay his back taxes because he has directed the IRS to "prioritize" enforcement against terrorists and conservative groups? Should Obama have the power to decide that selling weapons to drug cartels is acceptable as long as your dues (i.e. political contributions) are paid up, but still illegal to people not on his friends list?

We're not talking about deciding where to use scarce resources, we're talking about deciding that some groups are immune to some laws, to the point that government isn't just not actively hunting for them but is actively helping them break the law.

If you knew a thing about the law, you'd know that the circumstances around how laws are enforced are very much flexible and pliable. I'm sorry you don't know that Congress has long given POTUS wide latitude to decide the flexibility of immigration law enforcement but not to, say, your example of enforcing or not enforcing treaties against GE or HP.

 

[First]

They aren't representing the wishes of the American people

Correct conservatives are most certainly not.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Has anyone yet cited the specific laws Obama allegedly violated, or linked to a credible legal analysis with this information? I see endless comments (here, and elsewhere) asserting he's breaking the law, but I've yet to see anything proving any specific actions exceed his authority.

Obama when sworn into office promised to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States.

He has deliberately not done so and circumvented those laws. both by Executive Order, public statements and direction to government agencies.

I hope you are happy now, Bowfinger, with this definitive reply. He swore to uphold the law and that is binding so he has never not faithfully executed the law in any way. This is what Oaths do to people, make them committed.

 

[michal1980]

No.

Regardless, I'll remember in the future that you view Obama's interpretation of the law as the correct one over the legal community. Thanks! I would never have guessed you had such abiding respect for his legal analysis.

Did say that he was a "a constitutional law professor". But once again your unable to bring yourself to criticize the man that said multiple times he could not expand deportation deferrals. And then does it anyway.

Why is that? How strong is your basis towards this man?

 

[fskimospy]

Did say that he was a "a constitutional law professor". But once again your unable to bring yourself to criticize the man that said multiple times he could not expand deportation deferrals. And then does it anyway.

Why is that? How strong is your basis towards this man?

Haha, nice attempt to dodge.

 

[michal1980]

Haha, nice attempt to dodge.

I learned from you.

 

[brycejones]

I learned from you.

You have yet to prove you've learned a darn thing.

 

[Vic]

Who's really anti immigration? Most of us love immigrants. Problem is the liberals don't seem to understand the word "illegal". It means someone comitted a crime. Why can't we all just going around comitting crimes with impunity then?

I often notice that the people who claim to love government the least are usually the first to say that government authority should always be obeyed without question. Why is that, I wonder?

 

[nixium]

Anyway if someone's still interested in specifics, here's my (a legal immigrant, waiting in line)'s take on this:

Short summary:

GOOD - legal, employment based reforms include stuff to improve job mobility, and go a long way toward stopping "indentured labor" sort of approach to the H1B visa thing. Because of retrogression involving country of birth, the current rules make changing jobs for skilled professionals very difficulty, and employers also hold the thread of the visa over an employee's head. These reforms would end this, which is great news.

ANNOYING - The reforms have to be done via a rule making process, which can take 6-7 months. This is frustrating compared to what the illegals are getting - they just get employment authorization in about 6 months time. That being said, the rule making process is more robust and the "right way" to go about it.

BAD - Immigrants in the FB quota get the worst deal... they stay in their countries and wait their turn, patiently for years at a time. If they'd slipped across the border instead, and had a child, they could already by here. On the flip side, their method of immigrating is the least problematic and more "comfortable" so to speak.

GOOD - Giving employment authorization to illegals is interesting... they can't work below minimum wage anymore because of DOL protections, and without the threat of deportation gone, they can be more mobile and deal with employer abuse better. I don't think this is increasing competition as such - just by being here, they were already competing with the low skilled labor force.

VERY BAD - This now sets precedent that anyone who can get in here, stay for 5 years and pop out a kid gets to stay. This is bad overall and tends to attract people. Also, it's not clear what it means for people who don't have a child currently (but have been here 5 years). If all they need is a child for legal status, then there's going to be a sudden increase in fucking and overall increases in birth. The costs of this will have to be transferred to paying people as illegals don't have health insurance and can't get Obamacare. I'll change this point to "BAD" if someone can show a source that new babies won't count, only babies born prior to the rule making will.

 

[werepossum]

If you knew a thing about the law, you'd know that the circumstances around how laws are enforced are very much flexible and pliable. I'm sorry you don't know that Congress has long given POTUS wide latitude to decide the flexibility of immigration law enforcement but not to, say, your example of enforcing or not enforcing treaties against GE or HP.

Obama himself has long said he did not have the authority to change the law, something he is boasting that he has just done. W searched for the same authority and failed to find it. Obama has officially changed the government's function to be the exact opposite of the law, and you call that being "very much flexible and pliable". Until very recently, virtually no one believed the President had that authority. Why, then, should we not assume Obama will discover the same authority for any other law he dislikes?

For anyone not copacetic with Obama assuming the role of Emperor - again, his words - here's the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel memo. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf Let's not forget that while the OLC officially exists to help the President avoid breaking the law, in recent years it's been used to produce justification of whatever the President wishes to do, partly for politics but also to legally indemnify those who act on his direction. Bush famously used such a memo for justifying waterboarding. Obama used one to justify his eliminating from government bidding any contractors with strike breakers. (An Executive Order BTW which all nine SCOTUS justices unanimously rejected.) These are well known advocacy pieces, yet Obama not only did not get approval on everything he wanted (and a day later did), he also got reminded that the DoJ did not agree with his earlier unilateral law change.

 

[ivwshane]

The solution is pretty simple isn't it? Congress, as in the house, can pass a bill dealing with the issue or would you prefer to bitch about immigration for another 20 years until someone tries do something and the problem is much worse?

You and the right are completely transparent! Bitch when there is a problem that's not being addressed while offering zero of your own solutions or expending any political capital and then bitch about the solutions others have come up with while still not addressing the problem.

Gues what that makes you? A bitch just like the party whose knob you continuously slobber over!

Obama himself has long said he did not have the authority to change the law, something he is boasting that he has just done. W searched for the same authority and failed to find it. Obama has officially changed the government's function to be the exact opposite of the law, and you call that being "very much flexible and pliable". Until very recently, virtually no one believed the President had that authority. Why, then, should we not assume Obama will discover the same authority for any other law he dislikes?

For anyone not copacetic with Obama assuming the role of Emperor - again, his words - here's the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel memo. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf Let's not forget that while the OLC officially exists to help the President avoid breaking the law, in recent years it's been used to produce justification of whatever the President wishes to do, partly for politics but also to legally indemnify those who act on his direction. Bush famously used such a memo for justifying waterboarding. Obama used one to justify his eliminating from government bidding any contractors with strike breakers. (An Executive Order BTW which all nine SCOTUS justices unanimously rejected.) These are well known advocacy pieces, yet Obama not only did not get approval on everything he wanted (and a day later did), he also got reminded that the DoJ did not agree with his earlier unilateral law change.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama himself has long said he did not have the authority to change the law, something he is boasting that he has just done. W searched for the same authority and failed to find it. Obama has officially changed the government's function to be the exact opposite of the law, and you call that being "very much flexible and pliable". Until very recently, virtually no one believed the President had that authority. Why, then, should we not assume Obama will discover the same authority for any other law he dislikes?

For anyone not copacetic with Obama assuming the role of Emperor - again, his words - here's the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel memo. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf Let's not forget that while the OLC officially exists to help the President avoid breaking the law, in recent years it's been used to produce justification of whatever the President wishes to do, partly for politics but also to legally indemnify those who act on his direction. Bush famously used such a memo for justifying waterboarding. Obama used one to justify his eliminating from government bidding any contractors with strike breakers. (An Executive Order BTW which all nine SCOTUS justices unanimously rejected.) These are well known advocacy pieces, yet Obama not only did not get approval on everything he wanted (and a day later did), he also got reminded that the DoJ did not agree with his earlier unilateral law change.

Your ability to ignore contrary evidence is as impressive as always.

It's always neat to see what group is the latest to be added to the conspiracy. Now it's legal analysts from across the ideological spectrum!

 

[werepossum]

The solution is pretty simple isn't it? Congress, as in the house, can pass a bill dealing with the issue or would you prefer to bitch about immigration for another 20 years until someone tries do something and the problem isuch worse?

You and the right are completely transparent! Bitch when there is a problem that's not being addressed while offering zero of your own solutions or expending any political capital and then bitch about the solutions others have come up with while still not addressing the problem.

Gues what that makes you? A bitch just like the party whose knob you continuously slobber over!

Congress DID pass laws addressing the situation. Obama is ignoring them because he doesn't like them.

Your ability to ignore contrary evidence is as impressive as always.

It's always neat to see what group is the latest to be added to the conspiracy. Now it's legal analysts from across the ideological spectrum!

Or you could, you know, read the memo. Wouldn't do any good, I know, for everything you read always says exactly what you need it to say.

But I'll repeat: My position is EXACTLY what Obama has said repeatedly for six years. The law didn't change, the Constitution didn't change, and Obama's job description didn't change. He simply decided to rise above the law. And as always, you guys are happy with that, as long as it's a lefty doing the lawbreaking.

 

[werepossum]

In Obama's own words:
“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...klers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOFbDUHJnE&list=UUFldR60VyvA0S_zV776E_KQ

Just in case anyone honestly thought Obama is not unilaterally rewriting the law - a power he lacks.

 

[werepossum]

Thought this was interesting. Because of a quirk in Obamacare, businesses not providing health insurance for employees have a $3,000 incentive to hire an illegal over a legal alien or citizen.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

Hopefully Obama decides to fix this law too.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Remember, according to werepossum that means all those people are stupid or evil. He KNOWS that Obama is breaking the law. It's what his gut tells him. If they are saying otherwise they are either stupid or conspiring to trick him.

There is no room for him to just have been wrong.

I guess the butt hurt got all the way into his belly?

 

[ivwshane]

Congress DID pass laws addressing the situation. Obama is ignoring them because he doesn't like them.


Or you could, you know, read the memo. Wouldn't do any good, I know, for everything you read always says exactly what you need it to say.

But I'll repeat: My position is EXACTLY what Obama has said repeatedly for six years. The law didn't change, the Constitution didn't change, and Obama's job description didn't change. He simply decided to rise above the law. And as always, you guys are happy with that, as long as it's a lefty doing the lawbreaking.

Congress passed laws addressing the 11+ million who are already here illegally? Really? Did they also pass a law that dealt with legal visitors who's visas then expired and as a result are now here illegally? Really? Did congress pass a bill that stops businesses from hiring illegal immigrants and makes it a requirement to verify a worker is legal? Did congress pass a bill that dealt with boarder security in a way that's stops most illegals? Did congress fund any of the above to handle the increases of illegal immigrants since the last declaration of amnesty? Did congress pass any bill that prevents the president from doing what he's currently doing?

So no, congress didn't pass any bill addressing any one of those issues.


What law has Obama broken? You've repeated this claim along with your anti immigration buddy michael but you have yet to show how Obama broke the law.

 

[Fern]

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Has anyone yet cited the specific laws Obama allegedly violated, or linked to a credible legal analysis with this information? I see endless comments (here, and elsewhere) asserting he's breaking the law, but I've yet to see anything proving any specific actions exceed his authority.

Wrong question IMO. The (first) question is what gives this kind of power to the President? The Constitution was not written to describe what the President could NOT do, but rather what he was authorized to do. If we proceed along your apparent position - the President can do whatever (s)he wants as long as not expressly forbidden - we'll be finding new powers forever (or whomever holds the office will). In short, this type attitude is propelling us along to a autocracy.

If you're sincerely interested look up Jonathan Turley etc.

Fern

 

[Newell Steamer]

,.. but you have yet to show how Obama broke the law.

,.. because he hasn't broken the law; http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION_SCHOLARS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Sorry - I just had to, again.

:sneaky: