Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[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.

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?

Since you won't let us use Google, how about providing your link to the 10,418 number?

At least tell us to which House of Congress the 10,000+ applies.

[kieran2698]

[me=chuckd" post="8727875" timestamp="1417065208]

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?

Since you won't let us use Google, how about providing your link to the 10,418 number?

At least tell us to which House of Congress the 10,000+ applies.

Won't let you use Google? What are you dribbling about?

Gov track.us/congress/bills

There are 10,481 bills waiting in congress, I think your own readings have told you about the 300+ waiting for senate, you do the math.

k

[chuckd]

Won't let you use Google? What are you dribbling about?

Gov track.us/congress/bills

There are 10,481 bills waiting in congress, I think your own readings have told you about the 300+ waiting for senate, you do the math.

k

This link will take you to the 76 bills that the Senate has passed and are awaiting House action. The remainder of your 10,000+ bills are still in Committee or are under advisement within both Houses of Congress.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#current_status[]=5

The list of approved Senate bills bills consists of such pressing matters as:

S. 2056: A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, as the “Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office”.

S. 1456: A bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Shimon Peres.

S. 393: White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River Expansion Act of 2013

S. 112: Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act

S. 1561: CHIMP Act Amendments of 2013

S. 354: Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013

I noticed some other Post Office naming bills and a bridge that needed renaming if you would like the particulars.

I think you get my point that there are not over 10,000 bills that are awaiting House action as you so heroically try to make us believe.

There are a grand total of 76 bills awaiting House action. Most of which will not be voted on in this session.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand corrected on the Google statement. I read your snarky remark to another poster when you said:

"Can you not use Google?"

I read it as:

"You cannot use Google."

My apologies for the misinterpretation of your message.

Edited November 27, 2014 by chuckd

[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.

Just a minor correction, UG.

According to a link provided by kieran2698 himself, the Senate is now sitting on 414 bills, not the 352 as reported.

Worth mentioning is that both Houses of Congress were Democrat controlled for the first third of this administration. Virtually anything could have been passed during that time frame.

It took the voting public two years to realize Democrats should not be in charge of EVERYTHING.

It took another four years for the voters to realize Democrats should not be in charge of ANYTHING.

Edited November 27, 2014 by chuckd

[Chicog]

May I take this opportunity to wish a Happy Thanksgiving to all of our American Posters wherever you may be.

[JDGRUEN]

For the sake of clarity. In the American Government and in politics surrounding it... 'Congress' often refers to both Houses of Congress.... The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. But it becomes a mixed bag depending on context.

A Member of the House is called Congressman / Congresswoman - Congressional Rep/House Rep. - this does not include Senators ... And Senators do not include Members of the House.

Such sentences as -

'The President is waiting on Congressional action'... normally does not mean just the House - but both the House and the Senate.

The Senate is waiting on the House to act ... is preferred to The Senate is waiting on Congress to Act ... but is sometimes heard.

When someone says that there are 10,000 Bills stuck in Congress ... It is not likely to mean just the House -- but rather both Houses of Congress.

There are many mistakes made using these terms -- one needs to pay close attention or wrong assumptions can be made. New media make the mistake all the time - because the reporters didn't like Government class so they skipped it.

[JDGRUEN]

Congress CAN pull financial rug from under Obama's immigration amnesty: Republicans given boost by non-partisan body in row over deportation agency's cash

Congress's official fact-checkers now say the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill can legally pull the plug

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850882/Nonpartisan-Congressional-Research-Service-says-lawmakers-power-fund-Obama-s-immigration-push.html

Edited November 27, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[Chicog]

Congress CAN pull financial rug from under Obama's immigration amnesty: Republicans given boost by non-partisan body in row over deportation agency's cash

Congress's official fact-checkers now say the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill can legally pull the plug

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850882/Nonpartisan-Congressional-Research-Service-says-lawmakers-power-fund-Obama-s-immigration-push.html

"While the normal appropriations procedure makes it difficult to seize control of fees that an agency like USCIS might use to plot its own course, a different maneuver – writing a short piece of legislation – would unlock what Congress needs."

Doesn't the President need to sign legislation into effect?

[thailiketoo]

We all know the Brits are smarter than Americans including their latest stance on immigrants.

Migrants will be banned from receiving any benefits until they have contributed to Britain, under government plans to limit access to handouts.

In other words no job no benefits. Show me the money. No money no honey.

I don't know about you guys but this works for me. Get a job and pay taxes or go home.

3 months no job and you get a bus ticket to Tijuana. Viva Cameron.

[JockPieandBeans]

We all know the Brits are smarter than Americans including their latest stance on immigrants.

Migrants will be banned from receiving any benefits until they have contributed to Britain, under government plans to limit access to handouts.

In other words no job no benefits. Show me the money. No money no honey.

I don't know about you guys but this works for me. Get a job and pay taxes or go home.

3 months no job and you get a bus ticket to Tijuana. Viva Cameron.

Do not believe the hyperbole.

This may be what he would like to happen.

Unfortunately he has to get the rest of the EU to agree with him.

Merkel will bitch slap Cameron and tell him to get back in his corner.

But thats going off topic.

Edited November 28, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[thailiketoo]

We all know the Brits are smarter than Americans including their latest stance on immigrants.

Migrants will be banned from receiving any benefits until they have contributed to Britain, under government plans to limit access to handouts.

In other words no job no benefits. Show me the money. No money no honey.

I don't know about you guys but this works for me. Get a job and pay taxes or go home.

3 months no job and you get a bus ticket to Tijuana. Viva Cameron.

Do not believe the hyperbole.

This may be what he would like to happen.

Unfortunately he has to get the rest of the EU to agree with him.

Merkel will bitch slap Cameron and tell him to get back in his corner.

But thats going off topic.

My point was that non Americans posting in this thread seem to think us Americans are against immigration and it ain't so.

We all love Mexican food and dances and so on. What the Americans don't like is giving them a free ride or worse having them rob and pillage our significant others and homes.

Get a job, pay taxes and no one has a problem with immigration. No job, no education and a penchant for criminal behavior and laziness we got enough of them already.

Funny thing when people get a job and start paying taxes they don't like supporting others who are not working and paying taxes and the Democratic party voting bloc decreases.

[JockPieandBeans]

Get a job, pay taxes and no one has a problem with immigration. No job, no education and a penchant for criminal behavior and laziness we got enough of them already.

Yes, the UK has the same problems.

The Liberal and PC Brigades have got a lot to answer for.

[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.

None of that matters under the U.S. Constitution. The Congress can sit totally idle for an entire presidential term and do nothing... It still does not give him the authority to go around Congress and enact his own legislation via executive fiat... If you are going to comment on certain happenings in American politics and government -- you ought to learn the rules by which it operates. We have an American President - not a King - not an Emperor ... not a Dictator ... three equal but separate branches of government with specifically spelled out powers and authorities. Creating one's own laws is not one granted to the president.

Edited November 28, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

One of the most highly experienced men in the subject matter is planning a coalition to launch a large scale lawsuit...

Conservative expert on immigration law to pursue suit against executive action.

“Unbelievable,” he says, listening to Obama explain the basics of his plan to defer action for up to 4 million illegal immigrants, and when Obama says he will no longer deport people who have “played by the rules,” he begins writing notes. “Illegal means not playing by rules,” he writes. “Huh?” he writes when Obama explains his reasons for acting alone. “You have NO AUTHORITY!”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2014/11/22/f6d2b3fe-728a-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html

[JDGRUEN]

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.

Yes - 'And the band plays on' while the U.S. Government sanctions by choice to ignore lawbreaking, violation of the U.S. Constitution - the very basis or our government - just to pass some infrastructure bills and trade acts... You have no idea what you are asking for... Ignoring corruption to the core - collusion and cover up... Wow! Nixon would have loved for you to be in charge back in the day.

[JDGRUEN]

Nonpartisan organization confirms the GOP can defund Obama’s immigration order.

On Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Breitbart that a report via the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service contends that Rogers is incorrect. The CRS indicated that Congress can deny funds to the immigration enforcement agency despite the fact that it operates primarily on revenues collected through the imposition of fees.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/nonpartisan-organization-confirms-the-gop-can-defund-obamas-immigration-order/

[Chicog]

Nonpartisan organization confirms the GOP can defund Obama’s immigration order.

On Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Breitbart that a report via the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service contends that Rogers is incorrect. The CRS indicated that Congress can deny funds to the immigration enforcement agency despite the fact that it operates primarily on revenues collected through the imposition of fees.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/nonpartisan-organization-confirms-the-gop-can-defund-obamas-immigration-order/

Seems to be the same as the other article you posted on the subject.

Press on with the lawsuit, seems to be the most viable option if there is one

[JDGRUEN]

Five Ways Congress Should Respond To Obama’s Executive Amnesty

The real issue at stake, however, is the poisoning of our constitutional system of checks and balances by a president who believes, after saying two dozen times the opposite, that he can invent for himself the power to overturn federal law by fiat.

http://spectator.org/articles/61078/five-ways-congress-should-respond-obama%E2%80%99s-executive-amnesty

[mania]

“Unbelievable,” he says, listening to Obama explain the basics of his plan to defer action for up to 4 million illegal immigrants, and when Obama says he will no longer deport people who have “played by the rules,” he begins writing notes. “Illegal means not playing by rules,” he writes. “Huh?” he writes when Obama explains his reasons for acting alone. “You have NO AUTHORITY!”

That is what I said back here

That is quite the contradiction saying "Illegal Immigrants" then saying they "Played By the rules"

But this is the same president that thinks the US has 57 States which he has visited & has one left to go...But that is not

counting Alaska & Hawaii??? Oh boy

[cgphuket]

Wow, I would need about 15k usd and 9 months to get my family to to the U.S. (I am a U.S. citizen) but if they enter illegally maybe they can stay...

[JDGRUEN]

Mexican President please with first steps to restore Mexican rights to lands taken in war...

Obama Contends He Has Shown Restraint on Immigration

obama called GOP critics whiny...

To help illustrate his self-imposed mercy, the President reminded his critics that "President Lincoln was far harsher with his critics than I have been. Hundreds of men were summarily arrested and their property confiscated for their criticism of his actions to suppress the secessionist movement. I have, as yet, done nothing of a similar nature, though my advisers tell me I'd be within my rights to do so."

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,155297.0.html

Edited November 29, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

TX Gov-Elect (Abbott) Suing Obama Over Immigration Executive Order

Former Texas A.G.

Texas Governor-elect Greg Abbott is preparing a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s proposed action to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants through executive action

http://www.westernjournalism.com/tx-gov-elect-suing-obama-immigration-executive-order/

Scroll down a little to see the article...

[NeverSure]

Good for Abbott. I'll bet he wins.

[Chicog]

An opposite view of Abbott's action with a few facts dropped in for good measure.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/the-new-texas-governor-s-cynical-immigration-threat.html

[NeverSure]

An opposite view of Abbott's action with a few facts dropped in for good measure.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/the-new-texas-governor-s-cynical-immigration-threat.html

"The Arizona law isn't about immigration, it’s about “illegal immigration.” How many times do people like Navarette need to be told the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Let me repeat it slowly so Navarett can understand: I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Against the law. Criminal… The fact that Navarette can’t tell the difference and would rather yell “racist” tells me all I need to know. This is the kind of opinion piece that makes you want to gouge your eyes out with popsicle sticks."

Commentary on your author titled "MORON OF THE WEEK: RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR." (caps not mine.) from The Daily Plunge.

[Chicog]

An opposite view of Abbott's action with a few facts dropped in for good measure.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/the-new-texas-governor-s-cynical-immigration-threat.html

"The Arizona law isn't about immigration, it’s about “illegal immigration.” How many times do people like Navarette need to be told the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Let me repeat it slowly so Navarett can understand: I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Against the law. Criminal… The fact that Navarette can’t tell the difference and would rather yell “racist” tells me all I need to know. This is the kind of opinion piece that makes you want to gouge your eyes out with popsicle sticks."

Commentary on your author titled "MORON OF THE WEEK: RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR." (caps not mine.) from The Daily Plunge.

Firstly, I don't see Arizona mentioned anywhere in the link I posted. Secondly he states in it:

But now that the governor-elect of the Lone Star State is threatening to sue President Obama over his executive action to temporarily shield from deportation some categories of illegal immigrants, it’s obvious that the Republican is failing other subjects.

Which indicates to me he knows the subject matter.

Thirdly, in the article being critiqued by the Daily Plunge, he states:

This isn't to condone illegal immigration. My views -- in support of deportations, workplace raids, giving more resources to the Border Patrol etc. -- are well known.

Which doesn't seem to match the narrative you describe.

[JDGRUEN]

Washington Post... Editorial Board ... President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration has no precedent

THE WHITE House has defended President Obama’s unilateral decision to legalize the presence of nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants as consistent, even in scope, with the executive actions of previous presidents. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-unilateral-action-on-immigration-has-no-precedent/2014/12/03/3fd78650-79a3-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html?hpid=z3

[Chicog]

Washington Post... Editorial Board ... President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration has no precedent

THE WHITE House has defended President Obama’s unilateral decision to legalize the presence of nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants as consistent, even in scope, with the executive actions of previous presidents. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-unilateral-action-on-immigration-has-no-precedent/2014/12/03/3fd78650-79a3-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html?hpid=z3

The lawsuit should be a formality then.

[chuckd]

Seventeen states are now involved with the law suit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas leads coalition of states suing Obama for immigration executive action

BY KELLY COHEN | DECEMBER 3, 2014 | 4:36 PM

The lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges that Obama's executive action “tramples the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause” as well as federal law.

The states of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin — and the governors of Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina and Idaho — have joined the State of Texas as plaintiffs, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern District of Texas.

"President's job is to enforce the law — not to make them,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said at a press conference in Austin on Wednesday formally announcing the lawsuit.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/texas-leads-coalition-of-states-suing-obama-for-immigration-executive-action/article/2556921?custom_click=rss

[JDGRUEN]

An opposite view of Abbott's action with a few facts dropped in for good measure.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/the-new-texas-governor-s-cynical-immigration-threat.html

"The Arizona law isn't about immigration, it’s about “illegal immigration.” How many times do people like Navarette need to be told the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Let me repeat it slowly so Navarett can understand: I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Against the law. Criminal… The fact that Navarette can’t tell the difference and would rather yell “racist” tells me all I need to know. This is the kind of opinion piece that makes you want to gouge your eyes out with popsicle sticks."

Commentary on your author titled "MORON OF THE WEEK: RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR." (caps not mine.) from The Daily Plunge.

Navarrette is a extreme radical going back many years... His opinions are only valid if you believe in the propaganda of La Raza... the only outfit more radical than Navarrette. Navarrette has no - zero credibility.