Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
The only immigration reform we need is to strictly enforce the current laws.

Round all of the illegals up, and send every single one of them back home.

Then build a wall the likes GOD has never seen to keep the illegals out.

If obama does act on his own, he needs to be impeached.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
The senate passed a good bill, a great bill, with teeth, that both repubs and demos voted.
Google what the bill says. What the bill does.

The bill ""stops"" employers from hiring illegals.
The employer will no longer get away with hiring, paying under the table, getting cheap labor, and thus paying less than the federal minimum wage i.e. less than $7.25 an hour.

Plus, employers that hire illegals can and often do treat their illegal workers any way they want. Just like slave labor.
Why?
I mean... Who's gonna tell? Who's gonna gripe? Who's gonna give the bossman away?
That illegal employee?
haha hehe hoho chuckle chuckle snort snort ckuckle

What draws illegals here in the first place are the jobs. The money $$$
And until this bill came along, that FACT had never been addressed.
This bill passed by the senate finally addressed the hiring of illegals.
You do not need a big-ass fence if once across that illegal can no longer find work.
It's not called rocket science. It's called common old fashion horse sense.

And you know the sad part of all this?
The employers that do hire illegals for a cheap buck, to avoid the law, and more so to attract
illegals into this country in the first place, ARE ALL PROBABLY REPUBLICANS !!!!
Most likely....

This immigration bill, passed by the senate, would greatly hinder and stop the hiring of illegals, fine any business that tried to hire illegals, and I believe (I'd have to read the bill again) I believe create a system where any hire-ee would have to be verified as an legal American citizen.


Sooooooo.... Naturally republicans in the house are going to oppose this bill.
And place all the blame on Obama.

One day, America WILL wake up.
I only hope we all live to see that day....

PS. And thanks America for once again being true to your cause by voting STUPID!
And I still ask the question, will America survive STUPID ???
.
.

Stopping employers from hiring illegals will produce a farmer's revolt in California wine country.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Oh yeah, and I like how when Reagan and then Bush did the 'ol amnesty thingy back in their tenures it was just fine and dandy with the Repubs back then huh?

And somehow, the nation miraculously "survived" and prospered from the actions of these two totally idiotic un-patriotic un-American anti-conservative former Republican presidents during their terms in office. And miracles of miracles, the size of gov't actually swelled and the deficits swelled even more than that while these two traitors held office.

So I guess Obama is going to join the 'ol immigration amnesty club that Repubs Reagan and Bush started and all of a sudden it's such a bad idea and the nation will suffer irreparable harm from it?

As Chris Matthews so succinctly puts it: "HAH!"

Bush granted amnesty?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I was wrong. I shouldn't have blamed republicans or Americans in general for voting STUPID. I do apologize.
The real blame goes to my frickin lazy-ass democrats that can't seem to get their fat ass off the potato couch to go vote. When less than 1/3 voted on November 4th, most of the blame lies with those that did not vote. Not with those that did.

OH GOD... Why did you make me a.... democrat??? ;)

Midterm turnout is always low. In the general scheme, this turnout was about average.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,670
15,068
146
liberal circle jerk started.

This asshole of a president also said he couldn't do anything alone on immigration.

What he lying then or now?


Republicans want cheap labor.
Democrats want voters.

Please tell me how giving amnesty to millions of low wage workers is good for Americans?
Please tell me how granting more visas to foreigners is good for Americans?


I love the shit coming out of his mouth about wanting to work with republicans. HA. How is ruling like a king working with republicans? Its more like 'My way or the highway"
That's right its not.

Obama and his lib buddies will cry about the min wage being so low, but they'll allow millions of new illegals to flood the low end job market.


Then again this terrorist of a president cares more about illegals then Americans. Americans don't want this. Illegals do. Who does Obama side with? Illegals.

But it's OK when Republican presidents force the issue by using Executive Order to get things done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/

Presidents have used this "power" since George Washington.

HOWEVER, as a life-long Democrat, I disagree with O'Bummer on this one. We SHOULD round up all the illegal immigrants and deport each and every one of them. Doesn't matter from what country they came, doesn't matter if they snuck across the border or merely "over-stayed" their visa...round them up and send them back.

PLUS, any employer who is found to be employing those illegals should be heavily fined for each illegal employee.
The ONLY industry that could present an argument for using them is the ag industry...and a properly set up and run "visitor worker" program would go a long way to solving the ag problem for workers.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,670
15,068
146
The only immigration reform we need is to strictly enforce the current laws.

Round all of the illegals up, and send every single one of them back home.

Then build a wall the likes GOD has never seen to keep the illegals out.

If obama does act on his own, he needs to be impeached.


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?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
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?

Like I said, the only immigration reform we need is to enforce the current laws.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
As Andrew McCarthy writes, there is only one effective check against Obama doing this, and that is the threat of impeachment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392345/amnesty-and-impeachment-andrew-c-mccarthy

The nation overwhelmingly objects to Obama’s immigration lawlessness, but it has no stomach for the only effective counter to it — the plausible threat of impeachment.

...

Fully within his constitutional authority, President Obama could, right this minute and without any congressional approval, pardon every illegal alien in the United States — indeed, every illegal alien anywhere who has been deported after violating federal law. He could do it by executive order and, while outrageous and condemnable, it would indisputably be within his Article II power.

...

The president’s pardon power is nearly limitless. There is a single exception, explicit in the Constitution’s Article II, Section 2: “Cases of Impeachment.”

The president can prevent incarceration and other legal punishments for any unlawful acts; but he cannot prevent impeachment — his own or any other official’s — based on the abuses of power that flow from those acts. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. It is about the removal of political power because of breaches of the public trust, not legal prosecution and punishment. Indeed, the Framers considered narrowing the pardon power to prevent the president from granting amnesty for his own lawlessness; they opted against it precisely because they believed the specter of impeachment would be sufficient disincentive.

As we’ve seen, the president’s pardon and prosecutorial powers are formidable. They do not, however, exist in a vacuum. They exist in a constitutional framework wherein the president’s core duties are to execute the laws faithfully and preserve our system of government. The fact that an act is within a president’s vast lawful power does not make it a faithful, constitutionally legitimate use of that power. An act need not be criminal or indictable in order to be impeachable. There is far more to fiduciary responsibility than acting within the margins of technical legality.

To offer an analogy, a judge who sentenced a defendant to 20 years’ imprisonment for handing someone a single marijuana cigarette would be imposing a legal sentence (i.e., within the governing statute) but would demonstrate himself unfit to be a judge. Likewise, lawmakers have the power to impose a 100 percent tax on income, but doing so would be an intolerable abuse of power. Similarly, a president who uses the pardon power and prosecutorial discretion as pretexts for usurping Congress’s power to make immigration law, for encouraging law-breaking, and for remaking the country in a manner that imperils the economic and security interests of American citizens, commits grievous impeachable offenses.

...

Absent a credible threat of impeachment, President Obama cannot and will not be stopped from granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, who will in short order be awarded citizenship and voting rights. You can call that a plea for impeachment if you’d like. I call it a statement of fact.
 
Last edited:

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
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?

why didn't the democrats?

Why wait until you lose both houses to play king?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Wow, just wow.

Why even bother to have immigration law on the book?

Did we try amnesty a while back to solve ILLEGAL immigration before? Yup we did, a big one during Reagan and a few smaller ones after that. Did it work? Even more illegals now = nope, not working.

Something about do the same thing over and over again and expect different result = crazy/nut/stupid.

One more thing, instead of getting more smart LEGALS such as Musk of Telsa, Moore of Intel, we are getting more of ILLEGAL peasants with no skill and no English. Talk about sheer stupidity.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
adding millions of legal low skill workers it not going to somehow make those employers pay more. If anything wages will be further depressed.

If it can be done by machine, it will be. It's only a matter of time before a machine will be cheaper than a human.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
Wow, just wow.

Why even bother to have immigration law on the book?

Did we try amnesty a while back to solve ILLEGAL immigration before? Yup we did, a big one during Reagan and a few smaller ones after that. Did it work? Even more illegals now = nope, not working.

Something about do the same thing over and over again and expect different result = crazy/nut/stupid.

One more thing, instead of getting more smart LEGALS such as Musk of Telsa, Moore of Intel, we are getting more of ILLEGAL peasants with no skill and no English. Talk about sheer stupidity.

It's not sheer stupidity for those up top. Dems want the votes, Repubs want the cheap labor.

The real fucking morons are the plebs who are for this illegal immigration reform. What do they get out of it? Will it make them feel better? Because it sure won't help already struggling citizens looking for work and trying to get ahead.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
toss every corporate ceo who hires an illegal in jail and there will be no jobs for them.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
When is exploiting executive orders to bypass the basic premise of separation of power going to be put to an end?

Can anyone explain how a president using executive orders is anything different from a dictator declaring a new law?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,629
35,394
136
Arizona was on of the first states to have its own law that directly went after employers who hired illegals and used the feds own E-Verify program which made it mandatory for all employers to check the immigration status of prospective employees within that state.This administration fought Arizona tooth and nail over that law in the courts.

Arizona barely attempted to use the very weak employer sactions provided in its law. Even Arpaio doesn't want to inconvenience employers. Harrassing brown people is one thing, busting your campaign contributors is another.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Obama once proclaimed "Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it."

Once again he is shown to be a hypocrite...

Because the new proclamation is "You won; But I'm still President. Deal with it."
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,629
35,394
136
Obama once proclaimed "Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it."

Once again he is shown to be a hypocrite...

Because the new proclamation is "You won; But I'm still President. Deal with it."

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.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,538
12,647
136
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.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Doesn't mean it was wildly divergent with the trend. This cycle it was 36.6%. 2010 was 40.9%. 2006 was 40.4%. 39.5% in 2002, and 38.8% in 1994.

Meanwhile, Maxine Waters won with about 20% turnout, and no one seems to care.

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.