Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[JDGRUEN]

Good for Abbott. I'll bet he wins.

Abbott is joining in with and is one of 17 states suing the obama administration.

[NeverSure]

"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.

You missed the point. I was showing the lack of intelligence of your source over time. He's a pro-illegal immigration nut.

[Chicog]

You missed the point. I was showing the lack of intelligence of your source over time. He's a pro-illegal immigration nut.

Yes, well that's quite easy to do when you reply to a topic with something completely tangential, especially when in itself it makes no sense.

Added: He must make sense to justify receiving this amount of attention from the rabid right.

Yet he said "I don't condone illegal immigration, but I do often defend illegal immigrants who are unfairly exploited, picked on and blamed for everything from crime to pollution to the quality of public schools."

Seems pretty black and white to me.

In fact he doesn't seem to have an opinion anything like yourself and JDGRUEN portray. Perhaps because it's rational.

I also think that illegal immigrants are more of a positive than a negative. They make a contribution to the U.S. economy, do jobs Americans won't do, replenish the American spirit with hope and optimism and often raise good kids with a work ethic and strong traditional values that put the native-born to shame. They're not a liability. They're an asset.

But, c'mon. These people are not saints. With the exception of DREAM Act kids involuntarily brought here by their parents, these people did something wrong. Illegal immigrants either overstayed a visa or crossed a border without authorization. That was wrong. Then many of them doubled down on the misdeed by using fake documents to procure employment or not paying income taxes on money earned, even though the federal government has set up an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number that allows illegal immigrants to pay taxes.

If that sounds harsh, blame my upbringing. I'm the grandson of a Mexican immigrant who came to the United States legally during the Mexican Revolution and my father spent 36 years as a cop. It's in my DNA to not make excuses for wrongdoing.

My friends in the immigration reform community need to get over their uneasiness and stop sugar coating who these people are and what they've done to get here. We can't fix the problem of illegal immigration until we deal with it honesty and candidly.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Chicog

[JDGRUEN]

obama may not have signed an Executive Order - he may have just gave verbal order for the DHS Secretary to do it ...

Amnesty shocker! The secret behind Obama's 'order'

President accused of 'sleight of hand' to protect self from impeachment

The White House appears to have engaged in administrative sleight of hand, changing U.S. immigration law not by executive order but by a memorandum “exercising prosecutorial discretion” Johnson signed the day of Obama’s Nov. 20 nationwide address that so far has not been filed in the Federal Register.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/

Edited December 4, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[NeverSure]

As we say in cattle country, Obama is all hat and no cattle.

[JDGRUEN]

Confirmed ... No Executive Order that obama spoke of has been filed...

Head fake? Obama never signed amnesty order

A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND. “As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/

[Scott]

I haven't kept up with the ins-and-outs of this particular topic nor the politics involved, but it's a hard situation to handle. Many politicians and presidents have a difficult time with problems related to immigrants and immigration. There are so many situations that don't fit into the laws and when dealing with people things are seldom easy or straightforward.

First, you have children born in the US who are citizens, but who have parents who are not and may be facing deportation. Breaking up families is one thing the gov't tries not to do. Some of these are single parent families and some have two parents and one may be a citizen and one not. If it is an infant who is normal and healthy, they can remain as a family unit in the country of origin. Older children and children in school may wish to not be deported and may have a say in that action. Placing these children in foster care is a VERY expensive proposition.

Second, you have all kinds of situations which include the blend of people who are citizens, legal residents and illegal persons who may be on a path to legalization. These may be situations that are best resolved by not deporting anyone.

Finally, many of these deportations take enormously long to accomplish. There are many situations to take into account and courts and judges have to review each case individually. This takes a long time and is expensive. In the end, there is a lot of motion and a lot of expense, but not all that many people get deported.

I really don't have an opinion on what can or should be done or whether an executive order is the way to go, but the situation is far from easy or clear cut.

[Ulysses G.]

I really don't have an opinion on what can or should be done or whether an executive order is the way to go, but the situation is far easy or clear cut.

Good post. I agree with you that it is VERY confusing, but I do have a few opinions. I object to - in effect - legalizing so many illegals when Americans are struggling for jobs. The illegals are already working, but mostly doing jobs that no one else wants. That will change instantly as soon as they are legal and they will be competing for jobs that low skilled Americans need and are struggling to get already. To me, this outweighs any other considerations at this point in time.

As to the executive order, I feel that it is an over-reach of power and actually unconstitutional. However, Obama is banking on it being a bad idea politically for the Republicans to pursue the issue. I am hoping that they can maneuver around that and put a stop to this - IMO - lawless behavior.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[JDGRUEN]

I really don't have an opinion on what can or should be done or whether an executive order is the way to go, but the situation is far easy or clear cut.

Good post. I agree with you that it is VERY confusing, but I do have a few opinions. I object to - in effect - legalizing so many illegals when Americans are struggling for jobs. The illegals are already working, but mostly doing jobs that no one else wants. That will change instantly as soon as they are legal and they will be competing for jobs that low skilled Americans need and are struggling to get already. To me, this outweighs any other considerations at this point in time.

As to the executive order, I feel that it is an over-reach of power and actually unconstitutional. However, Obama is banking on it being a bad idea politically for the Republicans to pursue the issue. I am hoping that they can maneuver around that and put a stop to this - IMO - lawless behavior.

Notice from Post #428 above ... This action is not being done by an Executive Order - but only by a Memorandum from the DHS Secretary..

Head fake? Obama never signed amnesty order

A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND. “As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote.

[JDGRUEN]

I really don't have an opinion on what can or should be done or whether an executive order is the way to go, but the situation is far easy or clear cut.

Good post. I agree with you that it is VERY confusing, but I do have a few opinions. I object to - in effect - legalizing so many illegals when Americans are struggling for jobs. The illegals are already working, but mostly doing jobs that no one else wants. That will change instantly as soon as they are legal and they will be competing for jobs that low skilled Americans need and are struggling to get already. To me, this outweighs any other considerations at this point in time.

As to the executive order, I feel that it is an over-reach of power and actually unconstitutional. However, Obama is banking on it being a bad idea politically for the Republicans to pursue the issue. I am hoping that they can maneuver around that and put a stop to this - IMO - lawless behavior.

In addition to what you say UG - which is very crucial to many Amerians.. The crux of the problem for many Americans is that obama and the DHS are bypassing Congress - making law out of thin air ... in violation of Separation of Powers ... basically an unconstitutional act... Congress has not approved any law upon which this action is being taken... Now we find out that it was only an opinion from a legal counsel and likely a verbal order from obama to the Secretary of DHS - who in turn issued a Memorandum ordering it done... All this is Being Done Totally Without Authority....

Personally I am hoping that the actions by Gov. Elect Abbot of Texas who is leading the 17 State Lawsuit will get an Restraining Order / Injunction to stop the DHS from proceeding. Abbott says he is aware of the fact that no EO was issued and are proceeding accordingly ... per the link in post #428... I think Abbot was chosen because Texas is in the jurisdiction of the 5th. Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and will back any Federal Judge in the 5th. Circuit on issuing a Restraining Order or an Injunction.... The 5th. Circuit array of Judges are seen as leaning moderate to conservative in their actions as compared to say the 9th. Circuit ... It would seem very possible that this - NOW a DHS action can be stopped in Federal Court.

Edited December 5, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[up-country_sinclair]

Moderate Republicans are upset because the president put them in a political box they can't get out of. Far-right hyper-partisans are seething because they've finally realized that despite the midterm election results, the president is still relevant.

Something the hyper-partisans neglect to mention is that a strong immigration bill passed the Senate months ago. If the House of Representatives brought the very same bill to the floor for a vote it would definitely pass and the president could sign it into law. It would truly be a bipartisan piece of legislation that would benefit all Americans. But Speaker Boehner is afraid to bring it up for a vote because of the backlash he would face from hyper-partisans. He's a afraid to lead, and I find that pathetic.

[Ulysses G.]

Do you have any evidence that bill would pass if Speaker Boehner allowed a vote? I have learned not to take your word for anything to do with politics.

[JDGRUEN]

Moderate Republicans are upset because the president put them in a political box they can't get out of. Far-right hyper-partisans are seething because they've finally realized that despite the midterm election results, the president is still relevant.

Something the hyper-partisans neglect to mention is that a strong immigration bill passed the Senate months ago. If the House of Representatives brought the very same bill to the floor for a vote it would definitely pass and the president could sign it into law. It would truly be a bipartisan piece of legislation that would benefit all Americans. But Speaker Boehner is afraid to bring it up for a vote because of the backlash he would face from hyper-partisans. He's a afraid to lead, and I find that pathetic.

obama is only relevant on the subject of this modified amnesty because he supports taking an unconstitutional action to achieve his ends... obama is such a coward that we now find out that he didn't even sign an Executive Order on this illegal alien issue. Rather he is relying on a legal opinion and what seems like a verbal order to the Secretary of the DHS to implement. Which the Secretary of DHS has done by issuing a memorandum directing it be done... already hiring people to do it ... all without any authority of law...

17 States are suing and we will see what happens ....

'Hyperpartisians - are not at the root of this resistance - rather is a huge cross section of middle Americans -- ranging from Right Wing to Conservative to leaning middle to middle... You seem to not be aware of who in America actually is against obama... You seem to think it is a tiny minority of Americans ... nothing could be further from the truth.

Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell may just lose their power platforms over this - come January.

Edited December 5, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Do you have any evidence that bill would pass if Speaker Boehner allowed a vote? I have learned not to take your word for anything to do with politics.

Concerning the huge budget bill pending, Boehner may not allow the stripping money from DHS to keep them from implementing this assault on the Constitution - allowing illegals to run free. Some believe Boehner will deal with Pelosi to get enough Democrat votes to pass it - and let Conservatives fume... I have no doubt Boehner would try the same thing on some kind of Amnesty package.

It really does not matter to Boehner and McConnell -- they have special interests to please - cheap labor for industry...and the voters who helped take back the Senate - BE DAMNED... Boehner and McConnell are ready set go to continue to put Party over Country.

Senator Sessions has outlined this quite well...

[JDGRUEN]

Mark Levin Calls Out Republican Leadership: ‘Are You More Important Than The Country?’

(CNS News) - Mark Levin, frustrated with Republican leadership and their failure to stand up to Obama’s unilateral executive amnesty, asked Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner, “Are you two, and those who support you, your surrogates and the rest, more important than the country?”

http://www.teaparty.org/mark-levin-calls-republican-leadership-important-country-70832/

Edited December 5, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Confirmed ... No Executive Order that obama spoke of has been filed...

Head fake? Obama never signed amnesty order

A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND. “As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/

Here is what has been ordered - iN LIEU OF a Real Executive Order done by obama... A Memorandum from Secretary of DHS Jeh Johnson.... Done with no basis of lawful authority.

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf

[Chicog]

Do you have any evidence that bill would pass if Speaker Boehner allowed a vote? I have learned not to take your word for anything to do with politics.

Yes. The fact that he won't allow a vote on it!

Last June the Democratic-led Senate passed a hard-fought bipartisan reform bill that would have achieved this goal. But that bill died under pressure from conservatives when it got to the Republican-led House, despite support from a bipartisan majority. Speaker John Boehner, who’s repeatedly said he favors reform, could easily usher it into law by letting the House vote on the bill. A minority of House Republicans would join with almost all Democrats to pass it. And President Obama has made clear he’s eager to sign it. But Boehner has been unwilling to allow such a vote, because a majority of GOP members don’t support it.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/john-boehners-immigration-dilemma

Edited December 5, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Do you have any evidence that bill would pass if Speaker Boehner allowed a vote? I have learned not to take your word for anything to do with politics.

Yes. The fact that he won't allow a vote on it!

Harry Reid did not allow a vote on something like 400 bills in the Senate. I understand why Speaker Boehner is not allowing a vote, if it would be passed by mostly democrats. Turn about is fair play.

[Chicog]

Do you have any evidence that bill would pass if Speaker Boehner allowed a vote? I have learned not to take your word for anything to do with politics.

Yes. The fact that he won't allow a vote on it!

Harry Reid did not allow a vote on something like 400 bills in the Senate. I understand why Speaker Boehner is not allowing a vote, if it would be passed by mostly democrats. Turn about is fair play.

Well essentially Boehner is blocking it to appease his tea party backers.

Democracy in action.

[Ulysses G.]

Politics as usual, but plenty of Republicans are against amnesty - not just the Tea Party.

[chuckd]

Moderate Republicans are upset because the president put them in a political box they can't get out of. Far-right hyper-partisans are seething because they've finally realized that despite the midterm election results, the president is still relevant.

Something the hyper-partisans neglect to mention is that a strong immigration bill passed the Senate months ago. If the House of Representatives brought the very same bill to the floor for a vote it would definitely pass and the president could sign it into law. It would truly be a bipartisan piece of legislation that would benefit all Americans. But Speaker Boehner is afraid to bring it up for a vote because of the backlash he would face from hyper-partisans. He's a afraid to lead, and I find that pathetic.

Just for the record, it seems the Senate leadership, Harry Reid (D-NV) has NEVER sent the bill to the House. He has been sitting on it and blaming the Republicans for its failure.

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

Senate Democrats keep own immigration bill from House, urge Obama executive action

Measure yet to be sent to lower chamber for vote as president weighs amnesty order

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Monday, November 17, 2014

Senate Democrats say Republicans could head off President Obama’s immigration plans by passing the Senate’s own immigration bill — the only problem is the Democrats still haven’t sent the measure to the House for a vote.

Known as S.744, the 1,200-page bill has been bottled up by Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, in a bit of legislative gamesmanship that has clouded much of the debate over the past two years. Now, that bill has become the centerpiece of last-minute chiding as Democrats say they have exhausted all alternatives except for having Mr. Obama go it alone.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/17/senate-democrats-keep-own-immigration-bill-from-ho/#ixzz3L1DKcinr

Edited December 5, 2014 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

Like I said, politics as usual... for the Obama administration

Edited December 5, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Do you have any evidence that bill would pass if Speaker Boehner allowed a vote? I have learned not to take your word for anything to do with politics.

Yes. The fact that he won't allow a vote on it!

Harry Reid did not allow a vote on something like 400 bills in the Senate. I understand why Speaker Boehner is not allowing a vote, if it would be passed by mostly democrats. Turn about is fair play.

Well essentially Boehner is blocking it to appease his tea party backers.

Democracy in action.

Boehner can't block what has never been presented to the House.

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

The Senate bill, which legalizes illegal immigrants and grants them a long-term path to citizenship, passed the Senate on a bipartisan 68-32 vote, but Mr. Reid has kept it in his chamber rather than send it to the House for action.

Mr. Reid’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on why the bill has been stalled, but analysts say it violates the Constitution’s clause that requires all revenue bills to begin in the House. If the Senate sends its version to the House, Republicans would be able to kill the legislation quickly on constitutional grounds.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/17/senate-democrats-keep-own-immigration-bill-from-ho/#ixzz3L1hTCFSo

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[chuckd]

And the latest:

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

House votes to block Obama amnesty amid escalating constitutional clash

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, December 4, 2014

House Republicans rebuked President Obama on Thursday over his deportation amnesty, voting chiefly along party lines to approve a bill nullifying the policy and further escalating what has quickly become a full-blown constitutional clash.

The bill is unlikely to go anywhere amid a White House veto threat and a vow by Senate Democrats not to bring it up at all.

Nevertheless, the vote presages bigger showdowns next week and early next year over immigration and executive power that could shape the contours of Mr. Obama’s final two years in office.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/4/house-votes-block-obama-amnesty/#ixzz3L1l1cLoU

[JDGRUEN]

Good and Timely article Chuckd.... (#446).... But just a note of clarity for those who cannot following the bouncing ball...

"The bill is unlikely to go anywhere amid a White House veto threat and a vow by Senate Democrats not to bring it up at all"

The Senate is STILL controlled by Senator Harry Reid (D) and the Democrats in the Senate. Republicans who will be seated on January 3rd. will control the Senate on January 4th, 2015.

We will see what happens then ... They may pass this rebuke or not -- hard to tell these days.

It is my personal wish that the any bill related to allowing amnesty for any purpose is left to die.

And - that bills to cut off the DHS funds to prevent / reverse DHS implementation of their own memorandum are stuffed into budget bills that cannot be vetoed.

Edited December 5, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[up-country_sinclair]

Sure, that's a good use of the tax payer's money; "a rebuke". I'm sure the White House is absolutely shaking over that.

Why doesn't the next congress actually do it's job and pass some legislation that can help the country. Instead they intend to focus on this charade that will accomplish absolutely nothing except appease the hyper-partisans for a week or so.

[up-country_sinclair]

Boehner can't block what has never been presented to the House.

Like I said, politics as usual... for the Obama administration

Some here need to take a break from the incessant hyper-partisanship and consider taking a civics class.

I'll kindly provide a quick primer for those who clearly aren't familiar with the US Constitution or have no idea how the US government works:

The US Constitution requires that all revenue bills begin in the House of Representatives. If Harry Reid were to officially send the bill to the House of Representatives, it would violate the Constitution and would be shot down on sight. What has always been done in these cases in the past is that the House simply writes up and passes an identical bill and then sends it to the Senate for passage.

But let's be honest: The entire point of this canard in the Washington Times is to distract from the fact that there are enough votes in the House to pass this bill, but Speaker Boehner doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to lead. Pathetic.

What's so frustrating about all this is that the bill is good public policy, but it has been hijacked by right wing provocateurs as click bait and the lunatic fringe is both ignorant and insatiable.

[Ulysses G.]

But Speaker Boehner is afraid to bring it up for a vote because of the backlash he would face from hyper-partisans. He's a afraid to lead, and I find that pathetic.

Did you mention something about "honesty"? You spun it like the bill had been introduced in the House and Boehner refused to take a vote. He has NO obligation to write up one like the democrat's bill just because you want him to.

[chuckd]

Boehner can't block what has never been presented to the House.

Like I said, politics as usual... for the Obama administration

Some here need to take a break from the incessant hyper-partisanship and consider taking a civics class.

I'll kindly provide a quick primer for those who clearly aren't familiar with the US Constitution or have no idea how the US government works:

The US Constitution requires that all revenue bills begin in the House of Representatives. If Harry Reid were to officially send the bill to the House of Representatives, it would violate the Constitution and would be shot down on sight. What has always been done in these cases in the past is that the House simply writes up and passes an identical bill and then sends it to the Senate for passage.

But let's be honest: The entire point of this canard in the Washington Times is to distract from the fact that there are enough votes in the House to pass this bill, but Speaker Boehner doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to lead. Pathetic.

What's so frustrating about all this is that the bill is good public policy, but it has been hijacked by right wing provocateurs as click bait and the lunatic fringe is both ignorant and insatiable.

The White House and Sen. Reid have already said there would be no changes to the Senate bill that would be acceptable to the WH and Senate.

It's either their way or the highway.

Some/many members of the House have strong objections to the Senate version and do not wish to approve it as written.

BOTH houses of Congress and the White House share the blame for the failure of this bill to be passed and signed into law. Your continued rhetoric about blaming the Republican House for inaction is far from accurate.

Your interpretation of what constitutes a good public policy and what others interpret as good public policy could differ by a large margin.

Democrats thought The Affordable Care Act was good public policy. Some of the more misguided ones probably still do.

Edit in:

Thank you for your civics lesson. You might be interested to know the substitution of a Senate bill for a defunct House bill to pass the Constitutional fiscal origination clause has been used before. How do you think Obamacare got passed?

Edited December 5, 2014 by chuckd

[up-country_sinclair]

But Speaker Boehner is afraid to bring it up for a vote because of the backlash he would face from hyper-partisans. He's a afraid to lead, and I find that pathetic.

Did you mention something about "honesty"? You spun it like the bill had been introduced in the House and Boehner refused to take a vote. He has NO obligation to write up one like the democrat's bill just because you want him to.

I spun it, huh?

My post, in total:

Moderate Republicans are upset because the president put them in a political box they can't get out of. Far-right hyper-partisans are seething because they've finally realized that despite the midterm election results, the president is still relevant.

Something the hyper-partisans neglect to mention is that a strong immigration bill passed the Senate months ago. If the House of Representatives brought the very same bill to the floor for a vote it would definitely pass and the president could sign it into law. It would truly be a bipartisan piece of legislation that would benefit all Americans. But Speaker Boehner is afraid to bring it up for a vote because of the backlash he would face from hyper-partisans. He's a afraid to lead, and I find that pathetic.

Nothing in my post implies that it was "introduced" to the House. As I pointed out above, that would be absurd because of it being inherently unconstitutional.

Once again we've returned the oft visited place where you've been caught out and refuse to simply admit it and move on. Don't expect me to engage in any back and forth silliness about how you think you weren't, because I don't have the time or the inclination.

By the way, it would have been polite of you to thank me for relieving you of your ignorance of the US Constitution and how the US government works. Good manners don't cost a thing.