Obama's "New" Immigration "Plan" Only Helps Obama....

[SuperHornet]

So says a non-Fox News commentator. He makes a LOT of sense. Being an executive order, it goes away once he's out of office. People can hardly afford to take advantage of it given that future admins may take a dim view on one who declares oneself to be here illegally. Plus, people may not even have to prove ANYTHING given that the Obama Admin doesn't bother to follow federal immigration law anyway. This is NOT the sort of thing one expects of a so-called "Chief Executive...."

http://news.investors.com/article/61524 ... l-ploy.htm

[Ibanez]

So says a non-Fox News commentator. He makes a LOT of sense. Being an executive order, it goes away once he's out of office. People can hardly afford to take advantage of it given that future admins may take a dim view on one who declares oneself to be here illegally. Plus, people may not even have to prove ANYTHING given that the Obama Admin doesn't bother to follow federal immigration law anyway. This is NOT the sort of thing one expects of a so-called "Chief Executive...."

http://news.investors.com/article/61524 ... l-ploy.htm

Executive Orders are in effect until they are revoked. EO13233 written in 2001 was revoked on Obama's first day in 2009. However, a clause in E013233 revoked EO13489, which was written in 1989 by Regan.

EO9981, signed in 1948 is still in effect.
1965: EO11246

[Ibanez]

Also, Executive orders are issued to government agencies. FYI.

[Bronco]

-
Flashback

Obama: I Can't Just Suspend Deportations Through Executive Order, There Are Laws on on the Books
Weekly Standard ^

Obama: I Can't Just Suspend Deportations Through Executive Order, There Are Laws on on the Books That was then, this is now.

In March 2011, speaking at Univision town hall in Washington, D.C., Barack Obama firmly stated that, as president, he can't simply "suspend deportations" with only an executive order. "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed," President Obama said then...

[SDHornet]

I’m not sure what the outrage is about. Obama is only following the status quo established by many of his predecessors. Well except Reagan, at least he had the balls to legalize some of us. I guess Obama could be keeping that option open as well but I’m not sure if he will need to play that card though, clearly team Brown is now in his corner.

[Wedgebuster]

I’m not sure what the outrage is about. Obama is only following the status quo established by many of his predecessors. Well except Reagan, at least he had the balls to legalize some of us. I guess Obama could be keeping that option open as well but I’m not sure if he will need to play that card though, clearly team Brown is now in his corner.

Meanwhile Mitt Romney is nailing down the hair and prairie dress team with a passion. I think SH wears these dresses.

[andy7171]

I’m not sure what the outrage is about. Obama is only following the status quo established by many of his predecessors. Well except Reagan, at least he had the balls to legalize some of us. I guess Obama could be keeping that option open as well but I’m not sure if he will need to play that card though, clearly team Brown is now in his corner.

Meanwhile Mitt Romney is nailing down the hair and prairie dress team with a passion. I think SH wears these dresses.

Do their neck look enlongated?

[polsongrizz]

I’m not sure what the outrage is about. Obama is only following the status quo established by many of his predecessors. Well except Reagan, at least he had the balls to legalize some of us. I guess Obama could be keeping that option open as well but I’m not sure if he will need to play that card though, clearly team Brown is now in his corner.

Well actually with the exception of the basic response from Right Wingers it looks like the people who actually think for themselves feel differently...

President Barack Obama's high-profile shift on immigration last week—announcing plans to grant temporary legal status to as many as 800,000 undocumented people brought to American soil as children—has the overwhelming support of likely voters in a new Bloomberg poll released Tuesday.

Sixty-four percent of them—and 66 percent of independents, the frequently up-for-grabs voters thought to decide elections—support the president's decision.

The Bloomberg survey found that just 30 percent of likely voters disagreed with the president's plan. Fifty-six percent of likely Republican voters opposed it, while 86 percent of Democrats supported it. Just 26 percent of independents sided with the Republican majority in the poll.

So much for that...

[Bronco]

-
The majority of the country doesn't like abortions or gay marriage

So you won't mind if a President Mitt makes them illegal with a stroke of a pen?

[blueballs]

I don't think there are a lot of people who think this is wrong from a moral standpoint, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the legality of the executive order usurping congressional authority.

The timing of this also reeks politically and appears to be an act borne of desperation. I though Romney had a good comment in regards to this when he wondered why Obama didn't see fit to do this when he had control of both houses of congress.

[Ibanez]

I don't think there are a lot of people who think this is wrong from a moral standpoint, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the legality of the executive order usurping congressional authority.

The timing of this also reeks politically and appears to be an act borne of desperation. I though Romney had a good comment in regards to this when he wondered why Obama didn't see fit to do this when he had control of both houses of congress.

There are a lot of things Congress could have done when they held control of both houses.

[CID1990]

I think that we do need to deal with this through some comprehensive immigration reform. Believe me, our immigration laws are very screwy right now, and I think that if some of the more egregious loopholes for fraudulent immigration were mire widely known, we would have bipartisan consensus on the need for changes.

All that being said, I have a few thoughts:

1. Of course this is a purely political move by Obama. All it takes is a memo. If it was that important to him, he would have done this in 2008. He is pandering votes.

2. John McCain has been in touch with the White House on numerous occasions over the last 3 years to try to hammer out a reform bill that would satisfy bipartisan requirements. He was promised movement on this by the White House 3 times, and each time they have never gotten back to McCain. Why? If this comes up, I guarantee that that Jay Carney is going to claim that this would not have been doable through Congress because Republicans won't reach across the aisle, and that will be a lie.

3. This is also a move to counter Rubio. I think Obama is trying to negate the benefits to Romney from a Rubio running mate. However, Rubio's stance on immigration is well known and if he winds up on the ticket I think he will still help Romney with the Hispanic vote.

4. Most importantly, the left needs to be very wary of what Obama is doing here, because his election to simply negate laws by not enforcing them is setting a dangerous precedent and weakens the executive-legislative relationship. Obama has claimed over the last three years that he has tried to do this and that, only to be blocked by Congress. In fact, he had said it so much that it makes one wonder if this has not been his strategy all along (maybe fuel for another thread topic). However, there are A LOT of regulatory laws out there that Presidents can ignore, and the vast majority of them are inimical to a "smaller government" philosophy. If Republicans are truly for reduced government, and presidents can simply choose whether or not to enforce the laws, then this activity by Obama paves the way to some things that the left is not gonna be happy about. In other words, if Eric Holder can simply choose not to investigate election violations that benefit the left, or Obama can simply choose not to enforce laws unpopular with illegal aliens, then someone like Romney can simply choose not to have certain EPA rules or antitrust laws enforced.

The duly enacted laws need to be respected across the board. This is a lose-lose for everybody.

[Ibanez]

Great! A bunch of illegal immigrants will be given amnesty. Too bad they aren't citizens with voting rights. Oh that's right, Acorn will come out of nowhere are sign them all up. Great strategy.

[Grizalltheway]

Great! A bunch of illegal immigrants will be given amnesty. Too bad they aren't citizens with voting rights. Oh that's right, Acorn will come out of nowhere are sign them all up. Great strategy.

It's not like the people covered by the order chose to come here illegally, azzhole.

[Ibanez]

Great! A bunch of illegal immigrants will be given amnesty. Too bad they aren't citizens with voting rights. Oh that's right, Acorn will come out of nowhere are sign them all up. Great strategy.

It's not like the people covered by the order chose to come here illegally, azzhole.

Yes, I realize that and no, I don't think you should deport the children that have grown up here because thier parents came here illegally. However, that isn't the point. This is clearly pandering to the latio population and I can guarentee that you will see voter registration increase with groups trying to get these illegals to vote. He's shoring up his Lation base, plain and simple. FUck stick.

[HI54UNI]

Great! A bunch of illegal immigrants will be given amnesty. Too bad they aren't citizens with voting rights. Oh that's right, Acorn will come out of nowhere are sign them all up. Great strategy.

It's not like the people covered by the order chose to come here illegally, azzhole.

So are you saying the kids can stay but their parents have to leave?

[Ibanez]

It's not like the people covered by the order chose to come here illegally, azzhole.

So are you saying the kids can stay but their parents have to leave?

that is irresponsible.


Ha. Good one.

[Grizalltheway]

It's not like the people covered by the order chose to come here illegally, azzhole.

So are you saying the kids can stay but their parents have to leave?

If they're educated, productive members of society, why not? Their parents are the ones who decided to come here illegally, they're the ones who should be punished.

[Ibanez]

So are you saying the kids can stay but their parents have to leave?

If they're educated, productive members of society, why not? Their parents are the ones who decided to come here illegally, they're the ones who should be punished.

so the parents should leave?


Ha. Good one.

[Grizalltheway]

If they're educated, productive members of society, why not? Their parents are the ones who decided to come here illegally, they're the ones who should be punished.

so the parents should leave?


Ha. Good one.

Yes. It's not like they'd be abandoning minors, as one has to have a high school diploma or GED to be covered by the EO. To clarify, I'm not claiming this whole thing isn't politically motivated, but I don't think it's worth the hysteria being drummed up by the right.

[Ibanez]

so the parents should leave?


Ha. Good one.

Yes. It's not like they'd be abandoning minors, as one has to have a high school diploma or GED to be covered by the EO. To clarify, I'm not claiming this whole thing isn't politically motivated, but I don't think it's worth the hysteria being drummed up by the right.

Ha ha. I think it's the right thing to do. Lets get these people citizenship so that the can live freely. I do think it's purely a move to garner more votes from the Latinos and its painfully obvious that it has nothing to do with true reform.


Ha. Good one.

[Ibanez]

So says a non-Fox News commentator. He makes a LOT of sense. Being an executive order, it goes away once he's out of office. People can hardly afford to take advantage of it given that future admins may take a dim view on one who declares oneself to be here illegally. Plus, people may not even have to prove ANYTHING given that the Obama Admin doesn't bother to follow federal immigration law anyway. This is NOT the sort of thing one expects of a so-called "Chief Executive...."

http://news.investors.com/article/61524 ... l-ploy.htm

While Schweikert's bill would prevent DHS from enforcing executive orders on immigration, Obama's policy change came only in the form of a memo on prosecutorial discretion from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, not an executive order.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... ion-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

I think that we do need to deal with this through some comprehensive immigration reform. Believe me, our immigration laws are very screwy right now, and I think that if some of the more egregious loopholes for fraudulent immigration were mire widely known, we would have bipartisan consensus on the need for changes.

All that being said, I have a few thoughts:

1. Of course this is a purely political move by Obama. All it takes is a memo. If it was that important to him, he would have done this in 2008. He is pandering votes.

2. John McCain has been in touch with the White House on numerous occasions over the last 3 years to try to hammer out a reform bill that would satisfy bipartisan requirements. He was promised movement on this by the White House 3 times, and each time they have never gotten back to McCain. Why? If this comes up, I guarantee that that Jay Carney is going to claim that this would not have been doable through Congress because Republicans won't reach across the aisle, and that will be a lie.

3. This is also a move to counter Rubio. I think Obama is trying to negate the benefits to Romney from a Rubio running mate. However, Rubio's stance on immigration is well known and if he winds up on the ticket I think he will still help Romney with the Hispanic vote.

4. Most importantly, the left needs to be very wary of what Obama is doing here, because his election to simply negate laws by not enforcing them is setting a dangerous precedent and weakens the executive-legislative relationship. Obama has claimed over the last three years that he has tried to do this and that, only to be blocked by Congress. In fact, he had said it so much that it makes one wonder if this has not been his strategy all along (maybe fuel for another thread topic). However, there are A LOT of regulatory laws out there that Presidents can ignore, and the vast majority of them are inimical to a "smaller government" philosophy. If Republicans are truly for reduced government, and presidents can simply choose whether or not to enforce the laws, then this activity by Obama paves the way to some things that the left is not gonna be happy about. In other words, if Eric Holder can simply choose not to investigate election violations that benefit the left, or Obama can simply choose not to enforce laws unpopular with illegal aliens, then someone like Romney can simply choose not to have certain EPA rules or antitrust laws enforced.

The duly enacted laws need to be respected across the board. This is a lose-lose for everybody.

Well, a dictatorship is one way to make government much smaller.

[JohnStOnge]

You know I have no objection to what Obama did as far as the Constitution goes. I disagree with it in a policy sense. But I think what he did is a legitimate exercise with respect to the separation of powers.

That's the point. The idea was to keep any one branch from having too much power. And the thing the President can do in order to keep the legislative and judicial branches from having too much power is simply refuse to enforce. It's been done before.

Now the People can decide whether or not they are offended by that so that it plays a role in who they vote for in the next election.

It would be a different matter if the President started enforcing laws that don't exist. To me, that would not be consistent with the idea of separation of powers as he would be making law and that is Congress' job. But the President opting not to enforce laws...that's part of the idea.

[JohnStOnge]

Well actually with the exception of the basic response from Right Wingers it looks like the people who actually think for themselves feel differently...

You know, many of the people you call "Right Wingers" do think for themselves. In fact, I'd bet a higher percentage of them think for themselves than the percentage of people who "think for themselves" in the general population.

One of the worst arguments you can make for the idea that people don't "think for themselves" is pointing out that they are in the minority as far as opinion goes. Think about it. For yourself of course.