Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[snarky66]

So you allege that the lawless renegade is "winning"? OK

Freedom is "losing".

[Publicus]

A flick of the presidential pen by Barack Obama swept away the Republican party's election thunder of both 2014 and 2016.......

Poll Finds 89% of Latinos Support Obama On Immigration

The poll found that 89% of Latino voters support Obama’s decision to give temporary legal status to nearly five million undocumented immigrants.

Barack Obama has managed to turn defeat into victory, and put on a clinic on how to reverse momentum by attacking your opponent’s greatest weakness.

Latinos are standing with the president, which means that the immigration minefield just got a lot more treacherous for the Republican Party.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/24/worse-republicans-poll-finds-89-latinos-support-obama-immigration.html

Additionally, 85% of all independents and 76% of Latinos who identify as Republicans support Obama’s move.

….

Altogether, 80% of registered voters and 60% of Latino Republicans don’t think the GOP should attempt to cut the funding of this order, which anyway can't be done by the Congress.

Conservative white Republicans are pressing John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to act while both now realize any action would be damaging in the extreme to the Republicans. As it is, the Republican party is experiencing a serious schism over trying to deal with the president's immigration executive order.

In other words, the election night balloons are already flat out of helium and it's Barack Obama who pricked 'em.

[lannarebirth]

1. You keep avoiding my question. How much do you think American tax payers should pay for welfare for South America, Latin America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti and all the other places that Obama is trying to fund?

It's a ridiculously phrased question, because he is not. If America wants to give money to those countries, it has a foreign aid program.

Most immigrants are there to WORK and many of them already are. As I said, they are not entitled to federal benefits. They will be paying taxes. and that's why he's giving them the security of a work permit. So rather than funding them, they will be contributing to both the national and local economies where they work - except in the minds of people like Rector who can't even get his facts straight on their entitlement to benefits, nor their number.

2. Michigan has been using migrant labor for a century. First from the South (losers of the Civil war) and then from Mexico. Most of the crops could be picked mechanically and in my opinion that would be a good idea but why not make the labor permanent? Because there is only 4 months of work in Michigan. Either they go to Mexico where they can live for 8 months on 4 months wages or they go on welfare in Michigan.

Looks to me like there is something to harvest 8 months a year, including preparation for the next round of crops. So again, you appear to be wrong.

Where did you get this four month figure from?

http://www.pickyourown.org/MIharvestcalendar.htm

And reading various accounts, it seems there are other blue collar jobs that fill the gap in the cold season:

I hope this style of quoting satisfies your need for accuracy.

1. No there is not something to harvest 8 months a year in Michigan.

2. Since there are countries closer to the immigrants where the GDP is close to America's why do they want to come to America? Dole.

For the actual information of Federal benefits see below.

The average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.

During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.

At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.

Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.

In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.

At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.

In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

1. Yes there is. I showed you, Plus I showed you other Blue collar jobs filled by immigrants.

2. Everything from the Heritage Foundation and I've already shown you the flaws in that. Even a leading Republican senator disagrees with it. it is not "actual information" whatever that is. It is not even fact.

We appear to be going round in circles.

If you are simply going to cling to the Koch Brothers handiwork, then there isn't really much point in me offering you anything different.

This forum certainly benefits from having an actual US citizen such as yourself, who actually resides and votes in the US and is paying US taxes to give real perspectives on US politics, legislation and culture.

Edited November 25, 2014 by lannarebirth

[simondan]

"If you plan to enter the US illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

What!? Are such mixed signals intentional, or borne of stupidity?

Well, do I at least get a tax break, Emperor, if I follow the law and get my Thai wife a visa?

Nothing mixed about that. Makes perfect sense.

[chuckd]

Who do you think is more frustrated and angry over the political events of the last two weeks? Republican leadership (John Boehner/Mitch McConnell) or Barack Obama?

Republicans really need to get their act together and pass some tough legislation that the president will have no choice but to sign. They have to be smart and box him into a corner, because If he keeps winning like he has on this immigration/executive order commotion, then I really don't think they deserve to wield any authority in Washington DC.

You might want to wait until the new Congress is sworn in before you start beating the drums for them to do something.

They will take control on 4 January 2015.

Until then, the same Democrats are in control of the Senate and the legislative process, just like the last six years.

[thailiketoo]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

[chuckd]

Now jerking this thread back on topic, I thought the President had decided he did not have the Constitutional authority to change laws. You might want to watch this video and see what he says at the 25 second mark.

It rather defines what he thinks he has done. "I just took an action to change the law"

Edited November 26, 2014 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

I thought the President had decided he did not have the Constitutional authority to change laws.

That is what he said publicly at least 25 times.

[zydeco]

I thought the President had decided he did not have the Constitutional authority to change laws.

That is what he said publicly at least 25 times.

It seems that virtually every action Obama takes destabilizes the country, whether the action is at home or abroad. While the rule of law is dismissed for illegals and rioters, the heavy hand of prosecution descends on anyone mildly running afoul of EEOC guidelines, civil rights interpretations, or so-called hate laws. This is what the late Sam Francis, with whose foreign policy I have several severe disagreements, accurately defined as anarcho-tyranny. Government creates the circumstances where the law is easily disregarded by favored groups but is draconian in its applications towards targeted groups.

[Ulysses G.]

What bothers more more than Obama's dishonest actions, is other politicians and media figures who make up and repeat the spin to back them up. No matter how obvious it is that he is lying or breaking laws in a de facto manner, a chorus of respected figures saying otherwise is very convincing to the general public.

[chuckd]

The White House spin team will say he didn't really say that, and if he did he didn't mean to say it.

the main stream media will say..."OK. When do we get to ride Air Force 1 again?"

The blind leading the blinded.

[kieran2698]

What bothers more more than Obama's dishonest actions, is other politicians and media figures who make up and repeat the spin to back them up. No matter how obvious it is that he is lying or breaking laws in a de facto manner, a chorus of respected figures saying otherwise is very convincing to the general public.

And when the chorus is saying he is just doing what Bush Sr and Reagan already did?

[MJP]

A post with messed up quotes has been removed.

[Ulysses G.]

What bothers more more than Obama's dishonest actions, is other politicians and media figures who make up and repeat the spin to back them up. No matter how obvious it is that he is lying or breaking laws in a de facto manner, a chorus of respected figures saying otherwise is very convincing to the general public.

And when the chorus is saying he is just doing what Bush Sr and Reagan already did?

You mean the stuff that he vehemently ran against when he was running for president and then continued doing when he got in office? There has been quite a bit of that.

[kieran2698]

What bothers more more than Obama's dishonest actions, is other politicians and media figures who make up and repeat the spin to back them up. No matter how obvious it is that he is lying or breaking laws in a de facto manner, a chorus of respected figures saying otherwise is very convincing to the general public.

And when the chorus is saying he is just doing what Bush Sr and Reagan already did?

You mean the stuff that he vehemently ran against when he was running for president and then continued doing when he got in office? There has been quite a bit of that.

I mean having an illegal immigrant amnesty, I don't recall him vehemently running against that.

[Ulysses G.]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

[kieran2698]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

[Ulysses G.]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

The House has sent something like 300 bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has refused to bring them up for a vote, even though the democrats control it. I'm pretty sure that would not have happened if Obama wanted it otherwise.

[metisdead]

32 off topic posts and replies have been removed. Let's stop sidetracking and stay on topic.

[Chicog]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

The House has sent something like 300 bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has refused to bring them up for a vote, even though the democrats control it. I'm pretty sure that would not have happened if Obama wanted it otherwise.

So when they get back from their latest extended holiday, can we expect a flurry of bills to arrive on Obama's desk for him to sign or veto?

[up-country_sinclair]

So when they get back from their latest extended holiday, can we expect a flurry of bills to arrive on Obama's desk for him to sign or veto?

Republicans need to pass bills that deal with increasing trade and improving infrastructure. If they can keep the economy moving in the right direction, they'll have a chance of holding the senate in 2016. My fear is that instead we'll see a raft of bills on abortion, hearings on Benghazi and a lot of pointless talk about impeachment.

Edited November 26, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[NeverSure]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

The House has sent something like 300 bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has refused to bring them up for a vote, even though the democrats control it. I'm pretty sure that would not have happened if Obama wanted it otherwise.

So when they get back from their latest extended holiday, can we expect a flurry of bills to arrive on Obama's desk for him to sign or veto?

I've read that this is their plan. If Obama vetoes everything then it will be obvious who the obstructionist is.

[Loptr]

Keystone will be the first bill presented to Obama when the new Congress convenes... If he vetoes it, McConnell believes he has enough Dems onboard to override the veto...

[chuckd]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

The House has sent something like 300 bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has refused to bring them up for a vote, even though the democrats control it. I'm pretty sure that would not have happened if Obama wanted it otherwise.

So when they get back from their latest extended holiday, can we expect a flurry of bills to arrive on Obama's desk for him to sign or veto?

Not unless Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) lifts the flood gates in the Senate and sends them to the White House.

[NeverSure]

I should have read Chicog's post better. No, not when they get back from holiday because the Dems don't lose control of the Senate until January. After that, yes.

For non-Americans and non-Canadians, Loptr's reference to the Keystone pipeline is about a long standing battle to run an oil pipeline from Canada and N. Dakota in the US to Nebraska and the Gulf of Mexico to oil refineries and perhaps even shipping. The US buys a lot of oil from Canada, but right now there is no efficient way to transport it to where there are refineries and shipping ports. It could carry more than half-million barrels of oil per day. It's more complex than that, but that's the short version.

[JDGRUEN]

What bothers more more than Obama's dishonest actions, is other politicians and media figures who make up and repeat the spin to back them up. No matter how obvious it is that he is lying or breaking laws in a de facto manner, a chorus of respected figures saying otherwise is very convincing to the general public.

And when the chorus is saying he is just doing what Bush Sr and Reagan already did?

List and links please? Mere hyperbole doesn't cut it.

[JDGRUEN]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

Surly you know that the logjam of legislation is in the Senate controlled by Democrat Harry Reid? If you did not know that you do not know enough to be commenting on American Politics

[kieran2698]

What bothers more more than Obama's dishonest actions, is other politicians and media figures who make up and repeat the spin to back them up. No matter how obvious it is that he is lying or breaking laws in a de facto manner, a chorus of respected figures saying otherwise is very convincing to the general public.

And when the chorus is saying he is just doing what Bush Sr and Reagan already did?

List and links please? Mere hyperbole doesn't cut it.

Can you not use Google? It really isn't that hard to find out that Bush and Reagan both had illegal immigrant amnesties.

[kieran2698]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

Surly you know that the logjam of legislation is in the Senate controlled by Democrat Harry Reid? If you did not know that you do not know enough to be commenting on American Politics

So the 352 waiting for Harry Reid outweigh the 10,418 waiting for Congress? Is that what you are saying?

[lannarebirth]

No, but Reagan and Bush tied their executive orders to legislation already passed by congress. Obama did not. There is a BIG difference.

The BIG difference being that for Obama's terms congress have been totally inactive other than to prevent anything happening, their approval ratings say it all, what is it now, 12.5% approval? About time he stood up to them, they are a complete farce.

Except, the thing you perceive as being the inactive agent within Congress is not what the American people perceive. They have just voted to give those you perceive as inactive and obstructors MORE power not less. Perhaps you do not understand how Congress operates and what its role is within America's 3 branches of government. Though the 3 branches of government are often portrayed as separate but equal and serve to balance each other, in fact Congress is the most powerful branch and the Executive branch is least powerful. That is as America's founders intended it.

Edited November 27, 2014 by lannarebirth