Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[chuckd]

Here is an article from the Boston Herald about remarks from a Congressman from Massachusetts about one of the Senators from MA.

It would seem I'm not the only one that has crazy ideas around here.

Wonder how this one will be spun.

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

Battenfeld: Hillary Clinton's Kennedy curse

US Rep. Joe Kennedy III reflects on first term

Saturday, December 20, 2014

By: Joe Battenfeld

Hillary Clinton could suffer a serious case of Kennedy deja vu if she makes another presidential run.

This time it’s U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III who may help derail Clinton’s White House path by endorsing her potential 2016 opponent, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, much the same way the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy backed Barack Obama in 2008.

“Whatever (Warren) wants to do she’s going to excel at,” the 34-year-old Kennedy said in interview with Herald editors and reporters. “She has been adamant that she’s not running for president and I take her at her word for that. If things change, we’ll see.”

Article here: https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2014/12/battenfeld_hillary_clintons_kennedy_curse

[JDGRUEN]

I think the direction that the more than 20 States are now taking in the courts to counter the obama/DHS allowance of illegals being left to stay in the U.S. will build even more and grow stronger with more entities joining in the fight ... It will only take one Federal judge to derail obama's give away Amnesty plan... Such a ruling would stymie obama's efforts for months pending appeals - allowing more power in the new Republican Congress to grow to find more ways of challenging obama.

And it is likely - should a Federal Circuit judge put a halt to obama's dream (nightmare) then it is entirely possible that a three judge appeals court panel would uphold the ruling ... and the SCOTUS would be a long way off -

[Publicus]

I think the direction that the more than 20 States are now taking in the courts to counter the obama/DHS allowance of illegals being left to stay in the U.S. will build even more and grow stronger with more entities joining in the fight ... It will only take one Federal judge to derail obama's give away Amnesty plan... Such a ruling would stymie obama's efforts for months pending appeals - allowing more power in the new Republican Congress to grow to find more ways of challenging obama.

And it is likely - should a Federal Circuit judge put a halt to obama's dream (nightmare) then it is entirely possible that a three judge appeals court panel would uphold the ruling ... and the SCOTUS would be a long way off -

Federal Circuit judge put a halt to obama's dream (nightmare) then it is entirely possible that a three judge appeals court panel would uphold the ruling

The Republican party's 20 states lawsuit is currently before the US District Court Judge Andrew Hanson whose federal District is the Southern District of Texas. The quote from the post confuses the two levels of the federal court(s) that will consider the case once the first ruling is made, which will be at the federal District Court level. The appeal court 3-judge panel comes after that at the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Hanson, appointed by Prez Bush, had already ruled against the Obama administration in another immigration matter, so this is why the governor of Texas is filing the case with Hanson's court on behalf of himself and the 19 other Republican party controlled states.

The poster well knows, as do many others in the country, Judge Hanson will rule against Prez Obama's immigration executive action, which is why the 20 Republican states shopped around for the federal judge of their choice, Andrew Hanson and Texas..

Judge Hanson's negative ruling when it comes sometime next year will of course be appealed by the administration. That is where the Republican party's 20 states lawsuit will begin to break down for the following reasons.......

The legal claims against the Obama administration are weak, say more than 100 immigration legal scholars (including conservatives). Past presidents including George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan exempted certain categories of undocumented immigrants for deportation relief and work permits under the legal theory of prosecutorial discretion — a president doesn't have the resources to target every offender, so he must prioritize. The executive branch says it only has the resources to annually deport some 400,000 of the estimated 11.3 million people in the country illegally, and must focus on deporting the most dangerous ones.

http://talkingpoints...gration-actions

There is a long history of presidents using executive authority on immigration matters, and legal experts largely agree that the president has wide latitude when it comes to U.S. immigration laws. Even the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that the president has “broad discretion” on immigration matters. In 2012, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy described this power in a 5-3 opinion striking down portions of Arizona’s extreme anti-undocumented-immigration bill.

“A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,” Kennedy wrote in the opinion, which was joined by the court’s conservative chief justice, John Roberts. “Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all."

http://www.newsweek....n-orders-285931

Let the Republican party controlled House and Senate come up with and produce a new immigration law and then face the national electorate in November 2016. Any new legislation must be comprehensive and it must be acceptable to the majority of the general electorate and to the great majority of Hispanic voters....which the Republican party in Congress cannot do because it does not know how to do it.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

I don't believe Obama will be impeached.

He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency.

I know this tired joke is popular in the far reaches of the extreme right-wing, but let me ask you this: If Joe Biden were to win the Democratic nomination, which Republican is guaranteed to beat him? Let me help you with that: No one.

I can think of a few who I would hope to beat him ( Huntsman, Portman, Bush), but they'd have a hell of a fight on their hands. Biden has tremendous foreign policy experience and is a great retail politician in the same vein as Bill Clinton. Republicans could forget about the electoral votes in Virginia and Pennsylvania; and then how do they get to 270? Hell, he might even be able to take Ohio from Portman.

Every VP is the butt of jokes---until they run for president. Then moderate voters reconsider and gauge their actual skills and experience.

So, keep yukking it up with the hyper-partisan BS and we'll have another Democrat in the White House in 2016.

"Every VP is the butt of jokes---until they run for president."

Please list the VP's who went on to be POTUS in the last 50 years? Hint. There have been just 14 in the history of the country, and none recently.

VP's who became President: LINK

John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson.

Martin Van Buren.

John Tyler.

Millard Fillmore.

Andrew Johnson.

Chester Arthur.

Theodore Roosevelt.

BTW, who IS the vice president of the US right now, anyway?

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Here is an article from the Boston Herald about remarks from a Congressman from Massachusetts about one of the Senators from MA.

It would seem I'm not the only one that has crazy ideas around here.

Wonder how this one will be spun. alt=whistling.gif>

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

Battenfeld: Hillary Clinton's Kennedy curse

US Rep. Joe Kennedy III reflects on first term

Saturday, December 20, 2014

By: Joe Battenfeld

Hillary Clinton could suffer a serious case of Kennedy deja vu if she makes another presidential run.

This time it’s U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III who may help derail Clinton’s White House path by endorsing her potential 2016 opponent, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, much the same way the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy backed Barack Obama in 2008.

“Whatever (Warren) wants to do she’s going to excel at,” the 34-year-old Kennedy said in interview with Herald editors and reporters. “She has been adamant that she’s not running for president and I take her at her word for that. If things change, we’ll see.”

Article here: https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2014/12/battenfeld_hillary_clintons_kennedy_curse

I will say this for Elizabeth Warren, she is intelligent, principled and forthright, so right there she posses at least two qualities that Hillary does not posses The problem with the DNC is that they seem to have already anointed Hillary, and given the incredible amount of negative baggage that Hillary has, I seriously doubt that she is electable At least with Warren the Dems would have someone who wants to expose Wall Street for all its corruption, instead of Hillary who is in Wall Streets back pocket

[up-country_sinclair]

I don't believe Obama will be impeached.

He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency.

I know this tired joke is popular in the far reaches of the extreme right-wing, but let me ask you this: If Joe Biden were to win the Democratic nomination, which Republican is guaranteed to beat him? Let me help you with that: No one.

I can think of a few who I would hope to beat him ( Huntsman, Portman, Bush), but they'd have a hell of a fight on their hands. Biden has tremendous foreign policy experience and is a great retail politician in the same vein as Bill Clinton. Republicans could forget about the electoral votes in Virginia and Pennsylvania; and then how do they get to 270? Hell, he might even be able to take Ohio from Portman.

Every VP is the butt of jokes---until they run for president. Then moderate voters reconsider and gauge their actual skills and experience.

So, keep yukking it up with the hyper-partisan BS and we'll have another Democrat in the White House in 2016.

"Every VP is the butt of jokes---until they run for president."

Please list the VP's who went on to be POTUS in the last 50 years? Hint. There have been just 14 in the history of the country, and none recently.

VP's who became President: LINK

John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson.

Martin Van Buren.

John Tyler.

Millard Fillmore.

Andrew Johnson.

Chester Arthur.

Theodore Roosevelt.

BTW, who IS the vice president of the US right now, anyway?

None recently, eh? Ever heard of George H.W. Bush.

You would also do well to take more care in composing your questions. As you have written it, I could also have included Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford.

Class dismissed.

And by the way, Joe Biden is the current vice-president, and I find it very telling that none of our resident extremists have have put up a name of a Republican nominee who could prevent him from reaching 270 electoral votes in 2016. The Republican party I grew up with needs to wrestle control back from the wingnuts if it ever hopes to occupy the White House again.

Edited December 23, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[Chicog]

Please list the VP's who went on to be POTUS in the last 50 years? Hint. There have been just 14 in the history of the country, and none recently.

Bloody hell Neversure, I'm not even American and the first one I thought of was George Bush.

[chuckd]

Governor Scott Walker (R-WI).

[chuckd]

Going back to the topic in hand, are we to understand that slipping in a bill to put the taxpayers on the hook for failed derivative gambles was a sufficient bribe for the republicans to suspend their fake outrage over Obama's actions on immigration?

What a system.

This would probably be a good idea if they were there long enough to do a reasonable amount of work:

https://downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/

"Going back to the topic in hand,"

Exactly how is the Dodd-Frank bill related to the topic in hand?

The topic is about the millions of illegal immigrants that Obama is instantly trying to make legal and has absolutely nothing to do with banking regulations.

[Chicog]

Going back to the topic in hand, are we to understand that slipping in a bill to put the taxpayers on the hook for failed derivative gambles was a sufficient bribe for the republicans to suspend their fake outrage over Obama's actions on immigration?

What a system.

This would probably be a good idea if they were there long enough to do a reasonable amount of work:

https://downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/

"Going back to the topic in hand,"

Exactly how is the Dodd-Frank bill related to the topic in hand?

The topic is about the millions of illegal immigrants that Obama is instantly trying to make legal and has absolutely nothing to do with banking regulations.

Did you forget your reading glasses again Chuck?

Going back to the topic in hand, are we to understand that slipping in a bill to put the taxpayers on the hook for failed derivative gambles was a sufficient bribe for the republicans to suspend their fake outrage over Obama's actions on immigration?

I'm sure the mods can decide if my post is off topic nor not, or perhaps you should report it and see.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Going back to the topic in hand, are we to understand that slipping in a bill to put the taxpayers on the hook for failed derivative gambles was a sufficient bribe for the republicans to suspend their fake outrage over Obama's actions on immigration?

What a system.

This would probably be a good idea if they were there long enough to do a reasonable amount of work:

https://downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/

"Going back to the topic in hand,"

Exactly how is the Dodd-Frank bill related to the topic in hand?

The topic is about the millions of illegal immigrants that Obama is instantly trying to make legal and has absolutely nothing to do with banking regulations.

Did you forget your reading glasses again Chuck?

Going back to the topic in hand, are we to understand that slipping in a bill to put the taxpayers on the hook for failed derivative gambles was a sufficient bribe for the republicans to suspend their fake outrage over Obama's actions on immigration?

I'm sure the mods can decide if my post is off topic nor not, or perhaps you should report it and see.

The spending bill was over 1,600 pages long and contained many items that are not relevant to Obama's illegal immigrant action.

I'm certain you could round up hundreds of items that you could bring up and then claim something about Obama's illegal immigrant action and waste everybody's time.

Why don't you take that approach. We await with bated breath your continued perusal of the spending bill.

[NeverSure]

Please list the VP's who went on to be POTUS in the last 50 years? Hint. There have been just 14 in the history of the country, and none recently.

Bloody hell Neversure, I'm not even American and the first one I thought of was George Bush.

I should have worded that better. I didn't say there were none in the past 50 years, just rare, and rare in history. Bush 1 was a long time ago too.

The odds are far against it.

[Chicog]

The spending bill was over 1,600 pages long and contained many items that are not relevant to Obama's illegal immigrant action.

I'm certain you could round up hundreds of items that you could bring up and then claim something about Obama's illegal immigrant action and waste everybody's time.

Why don't you take that approach. We await with bated breath your continued perusal of the spending bill.

Well Chuck you've already wasted two posts on something you consider not relevant.

Maybe I should have just said "Ooooh, I wonder why the Republicans have gone all quiet about Obama's Immigration changes" and then tapped my nose.

Who's "we" by the way, do you have a gang?

Edited December 23, 2014 by Chicog

[Publicus]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Here is an article from the Boston Herald about remarks from a Congressman from Massachusetts about one of the Senators from MA.

It would seem I'm not the only one that has crazy ideas around here.

Wonder how this one will be spun. alt=whistling.gif>

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

Battenfeld: Hillary Clinton's Kennedy curse

US Rep. Joe Kennedy III reflects on first term

Saturday, December 20, 2014

By: Joe Battenfeld

Hillary Clinton could suffer a serious case of Kennedy deja vu if she makes another presidential run.

This time it’s U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III who may help derail Clinton’s White House path by endorsing her potential 2016 opponent, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, much the same way the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy backed Barack Obama in 2008.

“Whatever (Warren) wants to do she’s going to excel at,” the 34-year-old Kennedy said in interview with Herald editors and reporters. “She has been adamant that she’s not running for president and I take her at her word for that. If things change, we’ll see.”

Article here: https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2014/12/battenfeld_hillary_clintons_kennedy_curse

I will say this for Elizabeth Warren, she is intelligent, principled and forthright, so right there she posses at least two qualities that Hillary does not posses The problem with the DNC is that they seem to have already anointed Hillary, and given the incredible amount of negative baggage that Hillary has, I seriously doubt that she is electable At least with Warren the Dems would have someone who wants to expose Wall Street for all its corruption, instead of Hillary who is in Wall Streets back pocket

The Republican party is going to lose in November 2016 which means Hillary Clinton will be elected president. The R party will lose because it is squarely against one of the pillars that has built the United States and will continue to build the United States, and that pillar is immigration.

There are undocumented immigrants and there are the documented ones, the latter being the vast huge majority always. There are law breaking immigrants and there are law abiding ones, the latter being the vast huge majority always. There has always been illegal immigrants and there will always will be illegal aliens. One either acknowledges these realities to deal effectively with them or one rejects them wholly and completely.

The mass of native born American voters and naturalized US citizens who are voters are going to reject and thus punish the Republican party for its feverish and unrelenting campaign to destroy the US pillar of immigration.

That is what the Republican party is doing. The Republican party can try to deny it, but no matter how they try to slice it, it's sill baloney. The Republican party is against immigration....it is obvious, plain, clear.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Publicus

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[NeverSure]

"Most voters oppose President Obama's reported plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to several million illegal immigrants and think Congress should challenge him in court if he goes ahead with it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the president granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants without the approval of Congress. Just 26% are in favor of Obama's plan, while 12% are undecided." LINK

[chuckd]

<snip>

The Republican party is going to lose in November 2016 which means Hillary Clinton will be elected president. The R party will lose because it is squarely against one of the pillars that has built the United States and will continue to build the United States, and that pillar is immigration.

<snip>

The oracle has spoken. This thread can now be closed.

[Ulysses G.]

<snip>

The Republican party is going to lose in November 2016 which means Hillary Clinton will be elected president. The R party will lose because it is squarely against one of the pillars that has built the United States and will continue to build the United States, and that pillar is immigration.

<snip>

The oracle has spoken. This thread can now be closed.

No one has even declared that they are running and the democrats just got smeared in the latest election, yet Publicus already know the results of the next one.

[Digitalnomade]

for me, USA is still owned by Mexicans. USA stole it from Mexico and didn't say it was full of oil which is clearly a violation. giving 5 millions work permit to "illegals" is in my point of view justified. personally I would give back the 49 States to Mexico and native Indians, and just keep Texas for my self. someone need to justify the lone star state!

Edited December 24, 2014 by Digitalnomade

[thailiketoo]

for me, USA is still owned by Mexicans. USA stole it from Mexico and didn't say it was full of oil which is clearly a violation. giving 5 millions work permit to "illegals" is in my point of view justified. personally I would give back the 49 States to Mexico and native Indians, and just keep Texas for my self. someone need to justify the lone star state!

States are determined by war and money. The Spanish fought with the Indians for Mexico and won and the Spanish fought for America with the Americans and lost. Six different countries owned parts of America at one time or another and lost it by war or blue light special sale. I don't imagine they teach much American history in whatever country you are from.

French Texas 1684–1689 Spanish Texas 1690–1821 Mexican Texas 1821–1836 Republic of Texas 1836–1845 Statehood 1845–1860 Civil War era 1861–1865 Reconstruction 1865–1899

[chuckd]

The spending bill was over 1,600 pages long and contained many items that are not relevant to Obama's illegal immigrant action.

I'm certain you could round up hundreds of items that you could bring up and then claim something about Obama's illegal immigrant action and waste everybody's time.

Why don't you take that approach. We await with bated breath your continued perusal of the spending bill.

Well Chuck you've already wasted two posts on something you consider not relevant.

Maybe I should have just said "Ooooh, I wonder why the Republicans have gone all quiet about Obama's Immigration changes" and then tapped my nose.

Who's "we" by the way, do you have a gang?

In an attempt to momentarily tie the score on irrelevant posts at 3-3...

Maybe you should have just uttered your comment to yourself and then tapped your nose, saving all this band width for something useful.

[NeverSure]

for me, USA is still owned by Mexicans. USA stole it from Mexico and didn't say it was full of oil which is clearly a violation. giving 5 millions work permit to "illegals" is in my point of view justified. personally I would give back the 49 States to Mexico and native Indians, and just keep Texas for my self. someone need to justify the lone star state!

What would the Mexicans do with Hawaii and Alaska?

Indians? Didn't anyone ever tell you that the guy who thought he had reach India was mistaken?

Who's going to give it back to the Neanderthals? When do they get their rights?

Edited December 24, 2014 by NeverSure

[Scott]

<snip>

The Republican party is going to lose in November 2016 which means Hillary Clinton will be elected president. The R party will lose because it is squarely against one of the pillars that has built the United States and will continue to build the United States, and that pillar is immigration.

<snip>

The oracle has spoken. This thread can now be closed.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN.

....but if I were going to say something, it would be to suggest that perhaps you stay on the topic, although it may well have passed its use-by date.

For now, I think we will let it run anyway.

It's very close to Christmas and perhaps someone will have a profound moment of inspiration!!

[Chicog]

In an attempt to momentarily tie the score on irrelevant posts at 3-3...

Maybe you should have just uttered your comment to yourself and then tapped your nose, saving all this band width for something useful.

Maybe you should just stop feebly trying to shoot the messenger. Does the truth hurt or something?

I suspect one of two things will happen: They will accept it was part of a deal to let them reward their bankster buddies, and forget all about it; or they are going to be forced by the teabaggers to start the fight again when they have both houses, and risk the wrath of most Hispanic voters in the country.

Although I doubt it; Fox have turned handsprings keeping the decomposing cadaver of Benghazi in the news, but wait until you see what the rest of the media could do with that one.

House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama on Friday inviting him to deliver his annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on January 20. Ho hum, right? This is something that the Speaker of the House has done every year for about a century.

But it was only a few weeks ago that various congressional conservatives, and no less than the editor of establishment conservative bastion National Review, were suggesting that Boehner forgo inviting the president next year in response to his executive action on immigration. Boehner was asked about it, this perfectly petty suggestion of retaliation, in a press conference. He swatted it away, and soon thereafter, the fever for such a move broke. Boehner will face little-to-no conservative pushback for agreeing to welcome the evil tyrant usurper-king into the Peoples’ House.

This atmosphere of “only a few weeks ago” already feels like a distant age of hot tempers. Conservatives were floating all sorts of dramatic suggestions for responding to the president’s executive action: barring him from delivering a State of the Union address, shutting down the government over Department of Homeland Security funding, blocking all of his nominations in the next Congress. And yes, some talked up impeachment, including Charles Krauthammer, the most prominent conservative columnist in the country. Senator Tom Coburn, always cited as one of President Obama’s dearest Republican friends because they worked on a couple things in the Senate nearly a decade ago, warned that Obama’s actions would incite violence in the streets.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-war-immigration-fizzles

[Chicog]

For now, I think we will let it run anyway.

It's very close to Christmas and perhaps someone will have a profound moment of inspiration!!

Might as well let it run until our favourite bunch of politicians come back, in their newly leased (and most generously funded by the taxpayer) motor vehicles, to discuss it when the GOP are in full control.

I'd like to see how it pans out.

[lannarebirth]

In an attempt to momentarily tie the score on irrelevant posts at 3-3...

Maybe you should have just uttered your comment to yourself and then tapped your nose, saving all this band width for something useful.

Maybe you should just stop feebly trying to shoot the messenger. Does the truth hurt or something?

I suspect one of two things will happen: They will accept it was part of a deal to let them reward their bankster buddies, and forget all about it; or they are going to be forced by the teabaggers to start the fight again when they have both houses, and risk the wrath of most Hispanic voters in the country.

Although I doubt it; Fox have turned handsprings keeping the decomposing cadaver of Benghazi in the news, but wait until you see what the rest of the media could do with that one.

House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama on Friday inviting him to deliver his annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on January 20. Ho hum, right? This is something that the Speaker of the House has done every year for about a century.

But it was only a few weeks ago that various congressional conservatives, and no less than the editor of establishment conservative bastion National Review, were suggesting that Boehner forgo inviting the president next year in response to his executive action on immigration. Boehner was asked about it, this perfectly petty suggestion of retaliation, in a press conference. He swatted it away, and soon thereafter, the fever for such a move broke. Boehner will face little-to-no conservative pushback for agreeing to welcome the evil tyrant usurper-king into the Peoples’ House.

This atmosphere of “only a few weeks ago” already feels like a distant age of hot tempers. Conservatives were floating all sorts of dramatic suggestions for responding to the president’s executive action: barring him from delivering a State of the Union address, shutting down the government over Department of Homeland Security funding, blocking all of his nominations in the next Congress. And yes, some talked up impeachment, including Charles Krauthammer, the most prominent conservative columnist in the country. Senator Tom Coburn, always cited as one of President Obama’s dearest Republican friends because they worked on a couple things in the Senate nearly a decade ago, warned that Obama’s actions would incite violence in the streets.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-war-immigration-fizzles

Whatever rebuttal there may be to the presidents executive orders will come through the courts raised by constituents or their local representatives..

[Chicog]

Whatever rebuttal there may be to the presidents executive orders will come through the courts raised by constituents or their local representatives..

I'm pretty sure Chuck will be all over me like a cheap suit me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see he didn't sign any Executive Orders, just Presidential Memoranda to "Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies", links to which are below.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/21/presidential-memorandum-modernizing-and-streamlining-us-immigrant-visa-s

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/21/presidential-memorandum-creating-welcoming-communities-and-fully-integra

It would appear that it may be difficult to challenge them in court.

Yoo wrote there is no legal or political "remedy" to Obama's executive actions on immigration, because "the prevailing standard of review of challenges to executive non-enforcement decisions is extraordinarily lenient." In other words, if the president does it, it's de facto legal, because there's no way to stop it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/227829-on-immigration-obama-beat-beltway-gop-but-fight-is-far-from

Before anyone jumps up and down without reading the actual article, the last part means *any* president, not just this one.

[lannarebirth]

Whatever rebuttal there may be to the presidents executive orders will come through the courts raised by constituents or their local representatives..

I'm pretty sure Chuck will be all over me like a cheap suit me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see he didn't sign any Executive Orders, just Presidential Memoranda to "Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies", links to which are below.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/21/presidential-memorandum-modernizing-and-streamlining-us-immigrant-visa-s

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/21/presidential-memorandum-creating-welcoming-communities-and-fully-integra

It would appear that it may be difficult to challenge them in court.

Yoo wrote there is no legal or political "remedy" to Obama's executive actions on immigration, because "the prevailing standard of review of challenges to executive non-enforcement decisions is extraordinarily lenient." In other words, if the president does it, it's de facto legal, because there's no way to stop it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/227829-on-immigration-obama-beat-beltway-gop-but-fight-is-far-from

Before anyone jumps up and down without reading the actual article, the last part means *any* president, not just this one.

I read it and I don't agree with the assertions made. There is a protocol for challenge and it is through the courts. If the protocol is followed most people accept the outcome. As I said before, I have no issue with a change in immigration policy towards leniency, but that change should have originated in Congress.

[Chicog]

I read it and I don't agree with the assertions made. There is a protocol for challenge and it is through the courts. If the protocol is followed most people accept the outcome. As I said before, I have no issue with a change in immigration policy towards leniency, but that change should have originated in Congress.

I don't think it says the protocol is wrong, just that the courts normally side with the president.

As for the second bit, I couldn't agree with you more. However, a bipartisan Immigration Bill would have originated in Congress this year (and probably been passed and signed by now) if Boehner had not refused to put the bill up for a vote.

Perhaps they are planning their own scaled back version for 2015.

[Ulysses G.]

However, a bipartisan Immigration Bill would have originated in Congress this year (and probably been passed and signed by now) if Boehner had not refused to put the bill up for a vote.

You keep saying this, but Boehner was under no obligation to write up a bill that would have been mostly supported by democrats and the democrats refused to put up bills from the republican house time after time - something like 400 bills. Turn about is fair play.