US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

[Ulysses G.]

One HUGE difference. It was NOT an executive order. Reagan worked with congress. Obama is circumventing their authority, even though he has admitted numerous times that it is beyond his authority. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was signed into law by Ronald Reagan and was an Act of Congress

At best you're being disingenuous.

No. You are. CONGRESS passed the bill and Reagan signed it. Obama intends to bypass them completely and act on his own. Reagan acted constitutionally. Obama is going try to get around it.

[Ulysses G.]

Lying is obama's Legacy.

Indeed he was awarded Liar of the Year for it. An award that he actually earned for a change.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

[uptheos]

I reckon if there was a referendum by the people whether to pass this bill or not, the no's would have it.

If Obama chooses to bypass congress, he can be likened to a dictator.

[up-country_sinclair]

One HUGE difference. It was NOT an executive order. Reagan worked with congress. Obama is circumventing their authority, even though he has admitted numerous times that it is beyond his authority. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was signed into law by Ronald Reagan and was an Act of Congress

At best you're being disingenuous.

No. You are. CONGRESS passed the bill and Reagan signed it. Obama intends to bypass them completely and act on his own. Reagan acted constitutionally. Obama is going try to get around it.

As I already posted, the Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This was contrary to the law passed by congress.

This is a fact. Not my opinion or point of view.

Edited November 15, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[bkkcanuck8]

As I already posted, the Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This was contrary to the law passed by congress.

This is a fact. Not my opinion or point of view.

I do not see any link that you have posted that referenced exactly what this discretion was. I have been able to find someone elses reference to a specific law about immigration. Can you provide the link so we can investigate exactly what this discretion entailed?

Was this the discretion in relation to refugees from conflict?

Edited November 15, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[Jingthing]

I reckon if there was a referendum by the people whether to pass this bill or not, the no's would have it.

If Obama chooses to bypass congress, he can be likened to a dictator.

The U.S. system is not based on national votes issue by issue, so your point is irrelevant.

Good leaders adopt unpopular positions anyway if they are the right positions.

Speaking of national votes, that's what the USA needs, COMPULSORY voting for all elections.

Australia -- you're doing it right.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

One HUGE difference. It was NOT an executive order. Reagan worked with congress. Obama is circumventing their authority, even though he has admitted numerous times that it is beyond his authority. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was signed into law by Ronald Reagan and was an Act of Congress

At best you're being disingenuous.

No. You are. CONGRESS passed the bill and Reagan signed it. Obama intends to bypass them completely and act on his own. Reagan acted constitutionally. Obama is going try to get around it.

As I already posted, the Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This was contrary to the law passed by congress.

This is a fact. Not my opinion or point of view.

Why not just provide a link so we can all see it? If you have already provided one, it is lost on page 17, which is virtually unreadable.

[chuckd]

The saving grace on all this is an Executive Order can be cancelled by the stroke of a Presidential pen in future administrations.

Yet another good reason to keep Hillary or any other leftist Democratic candidate on the sidelines.

[bkkcanuck8]

I reckon if there was a referendum by the people whether to pass this bill or not, the no's would have it.

If Obama chooses to bypass congress, he can be likened to a dictator.

The U.S. system is not based on national votes issue by issue, so your point is irrelevant.

Good leaders adopt unpopular positions anyway if they are the right positions.

Speaking of national votes, that's what the USA needs, COMPULSORY voting for all elections.

Australia -- you're doing it right.

Yes, take away further freedoms. The freedom of association.... force all the people that don't even bother paying attention to politics -- and don't even know the issues - to vote.... Maybe you can also give them the dice so they have something to help them make their decision (which is no longer their decision).

[up-country_sinclair]

As I already posted, the Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This was contrary to the law passed by congress.

This is a fact. Not my opinion or point of view.

I do not see any link that you have posted that referenced exactly what this discretion was.

OK.

When Reagan and GHW Bush took bold executive action on immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/219463-when-reagan-and-ghw-bush-took-bold-executive-action-on

[Jingthing]

I reckon if there was a referendum by the people whether to pass this bill or not, the no's would have it.

If Obama chooses to bypass congress, he can be likened to a dictator.

The U.S. system is not based on national votes issue by issue, so your point is irrelevant.

Good leaders adopt unpopular positions anyway if they are the right positions.

Speaking of national votes, that's what the USA needs, COMPULSORY voting for all elections.

Australia -- you're doing it right.

Yes, take away further freedoms. The freedom of association.... force all the people that don't even bother paying attention to politics -- and don't even know the issues - to vote.... Maybe you can also give them the dice so they have something to help them make their decision (which is no longer their decision).

So you're suggesting Australia isn't a free country?

[thailiketoo]

I reckon if there was a referendum by the people whether to pass this bill or not, the no's would have it.

If Obama chooses to bypass congress, he can be likened to a dictator.

The U.S. system is not based on national votes issue by issue, so your point is irrelevant.

Good leaders adopt unpopular positions anyway if they are the right positions.

Speaking of national votes, that's what the USA needs, COMPULSORY voting for all elections.

Australia -- you're doing it right.

Is there anything democrats would not consider making compulsory? Is there any part of my life that the politicians would leave alone? Life? Liberty? The pursuit of happiness?

I left the USA and came to Thailand. I didn't steal anything but they want to know all about my finances even here. Just leave me alone. The government is best which governs least. Did an American say that?

[Jingthing]

The democrats do not wish to make GUN ownership compulsory.http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/georgia-gun-requirement/index.html

[metisdead]

Posts which messed up the formatting on this page and the previous page have been removed.

[samran]

I reckon if there was a referendum by the people whether to pass this bill or not, the no's would have it.

If Obama chooses to bypass congress, he can be likened to a dictator.

The U.S. system is not based on national votes issue by issue, so your point is irrelevant.

Good leaders adopt unpopular positions anyway if they are the right positions.

Speaking of national votes, that's what the USA needs, COMPULSORY voting for all elections.

Australia -- you're doing it right.

Yes, take away further freedoms. The freedom of association.... force all the people that don't even bother paying attention to politics -- and don't even know the issues - to vote.... Maybe you can also give them the dice so they have something to help them make their decision (which is no longer their decision).

It's compulsory to turn up to the voting station and have your name marked on the electoral roll. How you vote or don't vote is not an issue, and many, like me, did a donkey vote at the last election.

What it does allow for is that the extremists on both sides of politics get drowned out by the cautious middle. Genuine change doesn't happen without consensus.

[Jingthing]

Face it. American right wingers are afraid of poor people voting. They do all they can to suppress it.

[thailiketoo]

Face it. American right wingers are afraid of poor people voting. They do all they can to suppress it.

If you mean poor people from other countries who are not Americans I think many would agree.

If you mean poor people who want money for not working from people who are working I think many would agree.

If you want to take poor sick people from Mexico and Latin America and fund their health care from American working people I think many would agree.

[samran]

Face it. American right wingers are afraid of poor people voting. They do all they can to suppress it.

If you mean poor people from other countries who are not Americans I think many would agree.

If you mean poor people who want money for not working from people who are working I think many would agree.

If you want to take poor sick people from Mexico and Latin America and fund their health care from American working people I think many would agree.

I guess they are making up for all the U.S. citizens heading south of the border to get their subsidised medicine there..

[Publicus]

As I already posted, the Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This was contrary to the law passed by congress.

This is a fact. Not my opinion or point of view.

I do not see any link that you have posted that referenced exactly what this discretion was.

OK.

When Reagan and GHW Bush took bold executive action on immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/219463-when-reagan-and-ghw-bush-took-bold-executive-action-on

Good on you for that.

That shut 'em up for a while but the fanatics will be back soon enough.

[Ulysses G.]

As I already posted, the Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This was contrary to the law passed by congress.

This is a fact. Not my opinion or point of view.

I do not see any link that you have posted that referenced exactly what this discretion was.

OK.

When Reagan and GHW Bush took bold executive action on immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/219463-when-reagan-and-ghw-bush-took-bold-executive-action-on

According to your link, Reagan worked with congress and signed a amnesty bill that they voted for and passed. The only executive action he took was to prevent the deportation of family members of the immigrants who were in the process of legalizing. That is very different from giving 5 million illegals executive amnesty with no input from congress at all.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[CMNightRider]

Face it. American right wingers are afraid of poor people voting. They do all they can to suppress it.

Huh??? Where did this idea come from? Is this something you read in some left wing pamphlet or did you just pull this out of the old wazoo. Actually, I can think of one post you made that actually made sense. That is, it should be mandatory for everyone to cast their vote, along with a valid identification card. People who fail to vote should be fined.

[Ulysses G.]

Requiring a valid identification card is racist!

[thailiketoo]

Face it. American right wingers are afraid of poor people voting. They do all they can to suppress it.

If you mean poor people from other countries who are not Americans I think many would agree.

If you mean poor people who want money for not working from people who are working I think many would agree.

If you want to take poor sick people from Mexico and Latin America and fund their health care from American working people I think many would agree.

I guess they are making up for all the U.S. citizens heading south of the border to get their subsidised medicine there..

You are making a joke right? Medicine as opposed to health care - hospital care for a family of 12 for life? I pay for my meds in Thailand at Boots are they subsidized too?

[Publicus]

The saving grace on all this is an Executive Order can be cancelled by the stroke of a Presidential pen in future administrations.

Yet another good reason to keep Hillary or any other leftist Democratic candidate on the sidelines.

The fringe marginal political right has now gone to work to try to supress the popular vote in 2016 but the fringe political right can't succeed because the great mainstream of American society, culture and politics does vote in presidential elections.

As I have noted several times, the phenomenon of modern American politics is that a large voter participation benefits the Democratic party while a lesser rate of voter participation benefits the Republican party. The voting confirmed this axiom in 2008 and in 2012 when participation rates much much higher than those of 2010 and 2014 benefited the Democratic party.

The lower voter participation rates of 2010 and the even lower participation rate of 2014 decidedly benefitted the Republican party. Voter participation in 2014 was in fact -- what, the lowest rate of participation in something like 42 years?!? The right of center Americans and the fringe political right need desperately to try to replicate that in the presidential year of 2016 but will fail and will fail miserably.

[Publicus]

OK.

When Reagan and GHW Bush took bold executive action on immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/219463-when-reagan-and-ghw-bush-took-bold-executive-action-on

According to your link, Reagan worked with congress and signed a amnesty bill that they voted for and passed. The only executive action he took was to prevent the deportation of family members of the immigrants who were in the process of legalizing. That is very different from giving 5 million illegals executive amnesty with no input from congress at all.

That is very different from giving 5 million illegals executive amnesty with no input from congress at all.

Prez Obama will implement the comprehensive immigration reform the polling surveys by people such as Gallop show are supported by the vast majority of Americans across the socio-cultural and political spectrum, to include Republicans, Independents, Democrats.

Only the fringe marginal political right says the lie Obama wants an amnesty. That's outright fiction.

Prez Obama will implement comprehensive immigration reform. Amnesty is and always has been off the table.

Comprehensive immigration reform, point by point by point, not amnesty and not any lone or single issue per se.

[thailiketoo]

That is very different from giving 5 million illegals executive amnesty with no input from congress at all.

Prez Obama will implement the comprehensive immigration reform the polling surveys by people such as Gallop show are supported by the vast majority of Americans across the socio-cultural and political spectrum, to include Republicans, Independents, Democrats.

Only the fringe marginal political right says the lie Obama wants an amnesty. That's outright fiction.

Prez Obama will implement comprehensive immigration reform. Amnesty is and always has been off the table.

Comprehensive immigration reform, point by point by point, not amnesty and not any lone or single issue per se.

I'm glad you posted that American laws are decided by Gallup polls. I had always thought the congress passed the laws. Has Gallop told the Pres where to get the money for his new immigration laws?

[Publicus]

Requiring a valid identification card is racist!

For more than 25 years now US immigration policies which are set by the Congress and implemented by the president have favored immigrants from Latin America which is in the neighborhood of the United States.

During the 25 or so years, European immigrant quotas have been significantly reduced.

Quotas of immigrants from East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia have also been increased.

These are the folk who are directly affected by the discussions about US immigration policies, laws, rules and regulations, reforms.

Fewer Europeans, more latinos, East Asians, South Asians. That is what this discussion boils down to.

[up-country_sinclair]

According to your link, Reagan worked with congress and signed a amnesty bill that they voted for and passed. The only executive action he took was to prevent the deportation of family members of the immigrants who were in the process of legalizing. That is very different from giving 5 million illegals executive amnesty with no input from congress at all.

The Reagan administration issued an executive order on discretion in the deportation of illegal immigrants. Reagan did not receive congressional approval to do so; he did it with his executive authority. President Obama seems poised to do the same. As is his right.

Were you posting on Thai Visa when President George W. Bush issued nearly 300 executive orders? If so, will we find your posts about George W. Bush trying to circumvent the constitution and that he should be impeached? Something tells me the answer to the that question is "no". But please go ahead and post evidence to the contrary.

Again it's the hyper-partisanship attempting to drown out rational discussion.

[JDGRUEN]

According to your link, Reagan worked with congress and signed a amnesty bill that they voted for and passed. The only executive action he took was to prevent the deportation of family members of the immigrants who were in the process of legalizing. That is very different from giving 5 million illegals executive amnesty with no input from congress at all.

The Reagan administration issued an executive order on discretion in the deportation of illegal immigrants. Reagan did not receive congressional approval to do so; he did it with his executive authority. President Obama seems poised to do the same. As is his right.

Were you posting on Thai Visa when President George W. Bush issued nearly 300 executive orders? If so, will we find your posts about George W. Bush trying to circumvent the constitution and that he should be impeached? Something tells me the answer to the that question is "no". But please go ahead and post evidence to the contrary.

Again it's the hyper-partisanship attempting to drown out rational discussion.

I suspect most of those GWB EOs were rather functionary ... And as far as rationale discussion if you think GWB should have been impeached - you not so middle of the road as you pretend. A difference between the Presidents Raegan and GWB ... They loved their country - America ... they worked to enhance American traditions ... obama hates America and is working to destroy are cherished traditions ... if you were so clear eyed middle of the road - you would already know that... But I can see you are a closet obamabot...

[Ulysses G.]

The Reagan administration issued an executive order on discretion in the deportation of illegal immigrants. Reagan did not receive congressional approval to do so; he did it with his executive authority. President Obama seems poised to do the same. As is his right.

Maybe you missed the part where Obama HIMSELF said numerous times that he can not legally do what he is about to do anyway, because he is "not a dictator". He was right about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVaa37mZv4

Edited November 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.