Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration

And the vast majority of Americans want our borders secure. If amnesty is given to millions of illegal immigrants our southern border will once again be flooded with illegal immigrants hoping to get in on the deal. Securing the borders is also a national security issue.

 

I see nothing wrong with CBP shipping law breakers back. It's their job. They failed to keep them out, so they need to send them back. I don't understand why I sound like "fox" when I simply want people who BREAK THE LAW, a territorial law, to be punished. That may be some insane notion to you, but it's actually a very simple concept.

 

Executive orders are only temporary and can be rescinded with a new administration. Obama knows this which is why I believe he will not follow through with his threat. It's just another red line bluff.

- - - Updated - - -

So why don't Democrats compromise and secure the borders first? Because Republicans know they are never going to! Trust is a two way street.

1986 reform legalized 3 million undocumented immigrants

We have already been burned once by false promises of border security in exchange for tying security to other aspects of the immigration debate. President Reagan, in 1986, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The laws was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today. An estimated 1.8 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, compared with 1.1 million in 2000. In ten years, that represents an increase of 54 percent, or 70,000 persons each year coming to our state illegally.

 

An executive order must also have basis in the constitution. Where is the basis for this one?

 

In other words:
Wash
Rinse
Repeat
Over and over and over and over again. Got it

 

It is certainly not a national defense issue. It's total politics for the Democrats. The Republicans will make sure the borders are secured first before they do another comprehensive deal with the party of liars.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is exactly what you will get if the borders aren't secured. Thank you for making the case for secure borders.

 

That's literally what our tax dollars pay CBP for. That's the whole reason we have them is to do that....

 

Unless you have some inside scoop about Rep's refusing to sit down with the President, I'll just disregard your post as another in a long line of progressive "I toe the Obama line" rants.

 

Oh good grief guys, if all you are going to do is repeating the same things over and over then there is nothing left to discuss. Just a reminder the border will not and cannot be totally secured, so long as there are jobs waiting there will people coming here to get them, you are believing the rhetoric with out asking for the details and doing the research to see whether doing the same things over and over will somehow result in a different result, talk about a perfect definition for insanity.
I have had my say on the matter and as far as I am concerned we have come full circle back to you saying "Secure the Border". Keep ignoring the past and you are doomed to repeat it, over and over and over. Enjoy your circular discussion, just keep in mind that nothing will change.

 

As usual another Con resorts the same old same BS make it personal, meaning you have nothing to add but your own rant. How about you show us where the Reps have sat down with the President or even offered to on the topic?

- - - Updated - - -

You have address both, too deep for ya? Speaking of liars, wait until you finally figure out that your Reps are lying to you, or do you even dare question them, me thinks Not.

 

NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE!

The President has no such Constitutional (supreme legal) authority in the slightest to do and act as such.

His authority stops at executing (executive) laws passed by the legislative branch.

If the legislative branch wishes to sit on their thumbs about a particular topic/issue then it sits.

You are way out of line and demonstrating extreme ignorance of the relationships and authority each branch of the 'former' Republican form of government is.

 

Take it up with the Supreme Court.

 

I believe the proper protocol is the President invites members of Congress to the WH, they don't invite themselves. But whatever. How about you go back, read Obama's own words and, for a change...defend him on the merits of his own words instead of pointing fingers at rep's and making excuses for him. I mean, if he, by his own admission, couldn't do 2-3-4 years ago what he's promising to do now, what laws have changed that makes him believe it's OK to do it now???? Mind explaining that?

 

You must have missed the fact that I stated I have had my say and was not interested in any further circular arguments.
But be my guest and go ahead keep repeating the same old mantras, and playing finger pointing games I am sure that will deal with the issues at hand. FYI: the voters will voice their opinion again in less than 24 months and this time more than 36% of all voters will show up, best get busy. Enjoy

 

Do you not realize how utterly obtuse that sounds?

Joseph Stalin
Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political "offences". At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.

Maybe you should rethink your analogy.

 

Stalin did whatever the F he wanted. Obama too, Constitution be damned.

Better:

Jonathan Gruber = Lavrentiy Beria

MOSCOW — They have known hard times before, the makers of Soviet encyclopedias.

There were all those awkward junctures such as the time when Josef Stalin's infamous chief of the secret police, Lavrenti Beria, fell into disgrace and all Great Soviet Encyclopedia owners were ordered to cut his entry out of the "B" volume and paste in more than anyone could ever want to know about the Bering Strait.

Obama did the same.

 

Please cite the relevant legislation that give him the authority to do this. This ought to be good.

Reagan signed legislation only. He did not issue exec orders like some puerile emperor.

 

Congress is under no obligation to do what the President wants - not moral. legal, or Constitutional. It's the reverse. The President is obliged - morally, legally, Constitutionally - to do what Congress wants. That's because Congress represents the people; the President represents the Congress by executing its laws. That's the American system. Obama and his cronies are pushing for dictatorship.

After 2008, Nancy Pelosi said "elections have consequences." Now Dems say elections need not have consequences. The bottom line is that libs want to do what they want to do. If they can do it legally, fine. If not, they're ready to trample the law. When Obama was re-elected in 2012, voters had little idea of what they voted for, just as in 2008. It was no vote for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," i.e., buying Latino votes.

The Dem spin on the 2014 election is that voters were unhappy with incumbents / Congress. But if voters wanted Congress to do what Obama wanted, they would have voted for Democratic Senators and Representatives. So this election repudiated Obama's policies, buying alien votes chief among them. Obama should be prosecuted for any attacks on the Constitution, i.e., the American people.

 

LOL, where on earth do you get your ideas on how the Executive branch works, where ever it is I would suggest find a new source, you are very confused.

I could not care less on anything Nancy says I am no fan of hers.

No one said the 2014 election means nothing, but some of us have pointed out that it was the lowest turn out in 72 years with only 36% of all voters even taking part. Meaning the Republicans do not have any blank check mandate other than to get the wheels in Washington turning again, don't and it will be a rough 2016 for them, so far I am seeing nothing but more of the same old same. So yes the elections did have a meaning, it means it is time for the GOP to put up or shut up.

 

Why do you think the Executive Branch is called the Executive Branch? Because it exists to execute the law. Laws originate in Congress. That's civics, once taught in every US school. No doubt the Executive Branch has arrogated more and more power to itself, but this power is illegitimate. Most Congressmen try to avoid taking clear positions on controversial issues, so too often they're happy to relinquish their power to the Executive, yet the power is still theirs. What you say is either cynical - a "see if you can stop us" boast - or misinformed. It's the sneering cynicism of the Obama Administration that offends so many, because ignorance can not be their excuse. The President saying "I can get away with it" is not the same as saying it's lawful and the right thing to do.

Ask yourself who benefits from Obama's proposal. I can think of only three groups, none of them representing the interests of average Americans.

First, the illegal aliens. But if Obama's proposal is to be taken at face value, they will benefit little. Those here at least 5 years may apply for work permits; their relatives won't benefit; they won't get medical subsidies; they'll live largely as they already do. A potential, and largely illusory, threat of deportation will be removed.

Second, businesses and people who hire the aliens as cheap labor. The supply of gardeners, nannies, field hands, factory hands, etc., will be guaranteed. The competition for unskilled manual labor jobs will be kept high, hurting black and Hispanic citizens, and keeping the wages low for those lucky enough to get jobs. If Democrats were true to their stated principles, they'd be appalled. But the rich employers are big Democrat donors, so Obama will look the other way to keep the party flush with cash. Are you proud of your President for selling out your principles?

Third, and most important, is the Democratic Party, trolling for minority votes. That's what it's really all about. Obama says those receiving work permits won't be able to vote, but Obama is a proven liar, isn't he? He did lie repeatedly about Obamacare, didn't he? So how will those with work permits be stopped from voting? Who will stop them? Board of Elections employees, on the government payroll, hence Democrats? Then Obama believes all people of Hispanic origin favor unlimited immigration (they don't), so he expects to cement Democrat's hold on the Hispanic vote, sustaining the political future of the party. What he's doing is importing and buying votes. Unable to win the support of the American majority, Democrats want to bring in foreigners in exchange for votes. Craving power above all, Democrats are willing to destroy the country to win elections. Disgraceful and criminal. This explains Obama's urgency about the issue, why he's made it the centerpiece of his second term. It's pure politics, without any appreciable benefit to the country at large.

So if you claim what Obama's doing is a great good and a moral imperative, tell me who benefits and how.

I agree that it's time for Republicans to put up or shut up. Their priority is to do what the voters just elected them to do: put an end to Democrats' lawlessness and rapine.

 

You seem to want to ignore Executive Power, read and learn:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

Who benefits:
Those that have been here for five or more years, we have not rounded them up in over five years, sometimes for far longer, so why not at least get them documented and know who is here? Do you think the GOP is going to all of a sudden change how they deal with the issue and start having massive roundups, if you believe that nonsense you are delusional, the GOP want the labor hare and the reality is they do not want them deported any more then Dems do.
The businesses do not want their work force disrupted along with their own operations, hence they hire them and keep them on board. One more time these people are here and have been for many years now, it is not like we are talking about importing more labor it is already here and in place. Neither Party will go after the Businesses that hire illegals and to believe so is to ignore the past and the reality of the present. Businesses do not want them rounded up and deported so it is not gonna happen.
ASSUMING that these people can vote, they cannot, you assume all those already here will support Dems, and due to their actions and the ingrained dislike for people of color by some within the Republican camp is the reason people of color do not support the GOP. Funny this is most Latinos are Conservative in nature and one would think they would support the GOP, the reason they do not and will not is that the GOP has shown that they are no friend to black or brown skinned people and that is driven once again by the many racists that have found a home within the GOP tent.
Like it or not this issue must be dealt with and the first step is only one of fairness and allowing those that have lived and worked here for many years to apply first for legal status then later to apply for full citizenship. One would think Conservatives would like the idea that these people want to do the right thing, it would be the Conservative and the Christian thing to do. But as you said the odds are that once they become Citizens and have the right to vote the GOP knows they will not be getting the bulk of those votes, so yes the opposition is all about votes, at least for the GOP it is.
Once this issue is addressed, we need to address the issue of border security, no one is arguing against more fencing and more border agents, it was even included in the Bill sent to the House, so to stomp ones feet and simply scream that we need to round em all up and deport em is neither logical or feasible because if we could have done so we would have done so long ago, the simple fact of the matter is we cannot. Same goes for border security, yes we can build more fences and put more agents on the border to catch and deport more of them, but the stark reality is we cannot close every foot of the border the costs would be in the high Billions and even with that we would never stop the flow completely, there simply if too much border to monitor all of it, not to mention the Thousands of miles of shoreline we have all of which can be breached, they have boats and know how to use them, you know that right? Putting the Army on the border is also not possible, first off it is not their function and secondly using military force, meaning shooting at those crossing, would not fly with the American People, the first time some women and children attempting to cross were shot and killed the outrage would be heard worldwide.
So there are some rational things that can be done, starting with identifying and registering those already here, as much as possible and that is what the President is attempting to do. What the GOP is doing is nothing more than pandering to their base by telling them that they want to do this or that much of which they Know is not going to happen. So who doing the game playing here, those that want to be Proactive and do something now, or those that want to throw around more promises and more rhetoric while in reality not planning on doing anything more than what they have always done? This issue did not start with Obama and it will not end when he is gone, there is a reason we are in this situation and it is because neither Party has ever really addressed the issue with plans that will really slow the flow of illegals coming into our Nation and neither Party will ever do what would really stop the flow and that is to go after the Businesses, so that leaves us with where we are.

 

Lol…Really, eh? Beirut cut and run. Iran Contra scandal. Voodoo economics. Reagan was a con artist.

 

E

Ending the cold war was no biggie, right?

Partisan hack

 

Yeah, not a real honest straight shooter like Obama...right?

 

You wrote much of interest. I'll give a more complete response as soon as I have time, but there's one thing I can't overlook. That link to a legal institute using space at Cornell contains this statement - "can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress." That statement is an outright lie. It is entirely false. I can only assume the anonymous authors at LII wrote from a political motive to justify the authoritarian government favored by the left and by Obama.

To expand on what I wrote before, the President's primary duty is to execute the laws passed by Congress. There is of course a great distance between law as concept and law as implemented by the departments reporting to the President. The purpose of executive orders is to clarify for the staffs of executive departments particulars of how the law is to be implemented. Executive orders have the force of law because they are assumed to exist only in furtherance of the laws enacted by Congress.

In no case may the President write law or modify law. That prerogative is reserved by the Constitution for the people's elected representatives in the Senate and the House. If the President could make or modify law by himself, the United States would be a dictatorship and the President a dictator. Surely this is obvious to you, even as a Democrat. Do you not wish to continue living in a democracy? Would you be happy with unchecked Presidential power when a Republican is next elected?

Here are a couple of descriptions of executive orders: "Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies (see http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html); "United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (see rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order ). All respectable sources agree that executive orders have force of law and do not require Congressional approval if and only if they concern administrative operations or powers explicitly given the President by the Constitution or the law.

LII is misleading, and if they are lawyers one must assume they are deliberately misleading. America is a Constitutional republic, not a dictatorship. That means the President may not make law. The proof may be found in the Constitution itself. I can't say if you've read it, but if you haven't, please read Articles I and II, which describe the powers vested in the Congress and the President. See http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html You will see everything I've said confirmed.

Please don't let partisanship lead you to support the destruction of the legal and governmental system which built our country.