Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

[fskimospy]

You call a 68-32 vote (13 of 45 Republicans) to be bipartisan? Lol...I'll try to remember this in our future discussions. And Reid never sent that immigration bill to the House, so they never had the opportunity to vote on it...you realize that, right?

What is the last bill of any consequence to get almost 70 votes in the Senate, including about a third of the opposition party? (probably something to do with war or national security) Needless to say, that's a pretty solid achievement for any new domestic legislation about a controversial topic.

And what do you mean about 'sent the bill to the House'. The House does not require the Senate to deliver a copy of the bill there to vote on it. What, did you think Reid hid it in a drawer or something and Boehner couldn't find it?

In fact, Boehner explicitly said he wouldn't take up any bill the Senate passed and that the House would pass their own immigration bill... which of course they never bothered to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/john-boehner-house-immigration-vote-93845.html

So yeah.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The House had it's own version with a couple major difference from the Senate bill (which technically the House cannot vote on directly). Those differences were key items that secured the required votes in the Senate. Knowing that the House bill would never pass the Senate the Speaker never brought it up for a vote. The fact remains that the GOP cannot or will not muster it's caucus in the House to pass any meaningful immigration reform due to internal party divisions.

As well as the fact that GOP leadership doesn't trust Obama to carry out the enforcement provisions of any immigration bill Congress passes. Wonder why?

 

[OrByte]

As well as the fact that GOP leadership doesn't trust Obama to carry out the enforcement provisions of any immigration bill Congress passes. Wonder why?

So...don't do you job because the President cannot be trusted to do his anyway....


yeah. Sounds like a 3 year old tantrum to me.

 

[michal1980]

What is the last bill of any consequence to get almost 70 votes in the Senate, including about a third of the opposition party? (probably something to do with war or national security) Needless to say, that's a pretty solid achievement for any new domestic legislation about a controversial topic.

And what do you mean about 'sent the bill to the House'. The House does not require the Senate to deliver a copy of the bill there to vote on it. What, did you think Reid hid it in a drawer or something and Boehner couldn't find it?

In fact, Boehner explicitly said he wouldn't take up any bill the Senate passed and that the House would pass their own immigration bill... which of course they never bothered to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/john-boehner-house-immigration-vote-93845.html

So yeah.

So what?

Outside of some made up red line that Obama did, whats the need for his order?

Is the country better off because of what he did?

Is the country better of politically because of what he did?

Some illegals are happy. Amazing that our president is now working for people that shouldn't be here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So...don't do you job because the President cannot be trusted to do his anyway....


yeah. Sounds like a 3 year old tantrum to me.

Obama could attempt to assure otherwise...but I haven't seen him lift a finger to build that kind of trust on this issue...have you?

 

[fskimospy]

Obama could attempt to assure otherwise...but I haven't seen him lift a finger to build that kind of trust on this issue...have you?

I knew it was Obama's fault that the GOP hadn't taken any action on immigration for years, I just couldn't figure out why until now. Thanks!

 

[Jhhnn]

The House had it's own version with a couple major difference from the Senate bill (which technically the House cannot vote on directly). Those differences were key items that secured the required votes in the Senate. Knowing that the House bill would never pass the Senate the Speaker never brought it up for a vote. The fact remains that the GOP cannot or will not muster it's caucus in the House to pass any meaningful immigration reform due to internal party divisions.

Nice little dance. Obviously, those divisions prevent HOR Repubs from doing anything w/o help from Dems.

So figure it out- what's more important, party solidarity & Boehner's Speakership, or this issue that Repubs have brought to the forefront with incessant raving?

Repubs have already given their answer whether you choose to recognize it or not. In that, they reveal an utter lack of sincerity.

 

[chucky2]

Sorry, why would we make it more attractive for illegals to come and remain here again? I keep missing how that is benefitting the vast majority of working class US citizens and their current/future vast majority working class children...

 

[K1052]

As well as the fact that GOP leadership doesn't trust Obama to carry out the enforcement provisions of any immigration bill Congress passes. Wonder why?

Such a concern (as unfounded as it may be to any rational person) does not excuse Congress from it's duty to advance legislation.

 

[OrByte]

I knew it was Obama's fault that the GOP hadn't taken any action on immigration for years, I just couldn't figure out why until now. Thanks!

dammit you beat me to it!!

 

[highland145]

Can someone explain to me why people support this and what benefits it has for our country?

Is there an unbiased report, anywhere, with the projected impacts on the economy?

No one here.

 

[Jhhnn]

As well as the fact that GOP leadership doesn't trust Obama to carry out the enforcement provisions of any immigration bill Congress passes. Wonder why?

Obama could attempt to assure otherwise...but I haven't seen him lift a finger to build that kind of trust on this issue...have you?

One of the lamest & most desperate cop-outs ever. If Repubs want action on immigration, they need to take some themselves, whether they trust Obama or not. As it is, they sure as Hell can't claim to be doing their part. Quite the contrary.

 

[OrByte]

Sorry, why would we make it more attractive for illegals to come and remain here again? I keep missing how that is benefitting the vast majority of working class US citizens and their current/future vast majority working class children...

politics do not make it more attractive to come to the USA.

Government legislation/regulation/Executive Order do NOT make it more attractive to come to the USA.

economics makes it more attractive. Business makes it more attractive. American Society makes it more attractive.

Government simply attempts to manage a problem that will continue to be, regardless of whether borders are militarized or if small business owners are fined/jailed for hiring illegals.

The US will no longer be an attractive place to come when Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Columbia, or Argentina become more attractive. Any idea when THAT will happen?

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry, why would we make it more attractive for illegals to come and remain here again? I keep missing how that is benefitting the vast majority of working class US citizens and their current/future vast majority working class children...

How does Obama's action make it more attractive for illegals to come here? Because they might get amnesty at some point in their lifetimes? The same could be said of the 1986 Reagan amnesty, which has been a mere 28 years to wait.

And how does it make it more attractive for those already here to stay? Those who've been here for years, put down roots, born their children as American citizens intend to do so anyway, if they can. Repubs certainly haven't proposed anything concrete to get them to change their minds, nor will they likely ever.

Repub money men luvs their illegal labor, and Repub charlatans luvs to froth up their base claiming otherwise. That's why it is the way it is & why Repubs don't want to change it. So long as they can maintain credibility with their base, it'll just be the same song, different verse. They'll just allocate pork barrel spending for more miles of pointless border fence & crow about it.

 

[shortylickens]

Republicans and Democrats both love illegal aliens. They just have different plans for them. The GOP wants easy, cheap labor. The Donkey Asses want votes.

Since they have a plan to give these people legal citizen status eventually that makes them slightly less hypocritical.

I would still prefer a president that enforces the fucking law. Since thats his job and everything.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans and Democrats both love illegal aliens. They just have different plans for them. The GOP wants easy, cheap labor. The Donkey Asses want votes.

Since they have a plan to give these people legal citizen status eventually that makes them slightly less hypocritical.

I would still prefer a president that enforces the fucking law. Since thats his job and everything.

I think if you went and looked at the actual law and what Obama was doing you would see that he is in fact enforcing the law. He has enormous discretion to act as he sees fit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Such a concern (as unfounded as it may be to any rational person) does not excuse Congress from it's duty to advance legislation.

You may want to talk to Harry Reid about that.

Unfounded? This Administration has used the DOJ to intimidate state and local governments determined to enforce federal immigration laws.

 

[Svnla]

Well, I will tell my friends in Asia that screw the waiting in years to get to the US the LEGAL way. Just get here by airplane, overstay the visa and then yell "racist/xenophobic/don't break up our family/<insert more lame excuses> then they can stay here as the ILLEGALS are doing. Save a lot of money, time, and effort.

Follow the (immigration) law/do the right thing? That's for chumps and losers. Ha!!!

 

[First]

lol. Who knew that the House failing to pass the fewest laws on record in Congressional history, including immigration reform hand-delivered by the Senate with a third of Republicans, was all because POTUS doesn't "faithfully" execute laws, whatever the fuck that vague bullshit means. So pass immigration reform that takes effect in 2017 with a new POTUS, as Schumer suggested, and problem solved. Won't do it? Gee, wonder why?

 

[VRAMdemon]

It can reasonably be argued that the Unitary Executive is a genie that can't be put back into the bottle. It was wrong of Bush to set the precedent; but once the precedent had been set, it's totally unreasonable to expect Democrats to unilaterally abandon that power, especially after it was used to force through all kinds of policy that the Dems opposed.

In other words, while Obama's supporters and Bush's detractors may individually be ill-informed or biased, the position they hold is not inherently contradictory.

On the other hand, I can't think of an even superficially rational justification to support Bush's unitary executive while criticizing Obama for doing the same. It doesn't even pass the smell test.

For the most part "the left" and "the right" in the US want to claim Thomas Jefferson as a part of their makeup and history.

Before he was President he was in favor of a profoundly weak executive branch, as President he wanted powers expanded. A great number of people of any political stripe have far less reservations about expanding executive power when someone they share an alliance with holds the office. Most people hate the idea of expanded when their "enemy" is in office and may actively try to curtail powers.

Whenever anyone wants more powers you should remember that its likely someone you find to be evil, incompetent, or whatever dumb shit people come up with, will eventually be President and the powers held by more benign presidents will be precedents.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What is the last bill of any consequence to get almost 70 votes in the Senate, including about a third of the opposition party? (probably something to do with war or national security) Needless to say, that's a pretty solid achievement for any new domestic legislation about a controversial topic.

14 Democrats joined 39 Republicans in the Senate to vote down amnesty legislation in 2007. I guess that was bipartisan as well.

 

[K1052]

You may want to talk to Harry Reid about that.

Unfounded? This Administration has used the DOJ to intimidate state and local governments determined to enforce federal immigration laws.

Then the President should be impeached. Where are the calls for impeachment from the opposition? There aren't any real ones because he is acting within the legal bounds of his discretionary authority. If congress wants to pass a law restricting executive authority (they won't because the GOP wants it if they get the white house) they can.

Get the House to pass the Senate version. If they feel the President goes outside the bounds of the law they can impeach him.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republicans and Democrats both love illegal aliens. They just have different plans for them. The GOP wants easy, cheap labor. The Donkey Asses want votes.

Since they have a plan to give these people legal citizen status eventually that makes them slightly less hypocritical.

I would still prefer a president that enforces the fucking law. Since thats his job and everything.

Puh-leeze. Repubs got a helluva lot more votes this month raving & pandering to nativist sentiment than Dems will ever, ever, ever get from naturalized citizens somewhere down the road.

Imagining it to be some other way is delusional. Repubs will do their best to make sure it's still an issue in 2016, provided they can maintain the illusion that they intend any sort of real solution at all.

They like it just the way it is more than any other way that could be devised. They get to have it both ways so long as there are enough people who believe in them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then the President should be impeached. Where are the calls for impeachment from the opposition? There aren't any real ones because he is acting within the legal bounds of his discretionary authority. If congress wants to pass a law restricting executive authority (they won't because the GOP wants it if they get the white house) they can.

Get the House to pass the Senate version. If they feel the President goes outside the bounds of the law they can impeach him.

You said Republican concerns were unfounded...they're not.

 

[dainthomas]

Then the President should be impeached. Where are the calls for impeachment from the opposition? There aren't any real ones because he is acting within the legal bounds of his discretionary authority. If congress wants to pass a law restricting executive authority (they won't because the GOP wants it if they get the white house) they can.

Get the House to pass the Senate version. If they feel the President goes outside the bounds of the law they can impeach him.

Basically this. No Republicans with real power are calling for impeachment because they want their guy able to do the same kind of stuff when they get one in the white house.

Faux rage.