• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Latinos furious at Obama on immigration delay

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Seems the "do nothing President" is taking the heat...for Congress acting Constitutionally

(Reuters) - Hispanic lawmakers and immigration advocates harshly criticized President Barack Obama's decision to delay executive action on immigration and vowed to keep pressuring him to make bold changes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/07/us-usa-obama-immigration-frustration-idUSKBN0H20QX20140907
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Obama To Delay Action on Immigration

At the request of some Democrats running in red states, President Obama has decided to delay any unilateral action on immigration until after the midterm elections.

Such action would have been a mixed bag. It could have excited Latinos and gotten them to the polls but it could also have excited the Republican base and gotten them to the polls as well. Also, the effect differs by state. In a state like Alaska, where there are few Latinos, the effect could work against the reelection of Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) who is in a tight race. On the other hand, in North Carolina, with more Latinos, it could possible have helped Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC).
In any event, Obama chose the safer course and will probably act after the elections. The Republicans will be furious at him no matter what he does. They will say that it is up to Congress, not the President, to make immigration laws and there may be an attempt to impeach him. Since the Republicans are likely to have a majority in the House, they could impeach him, but even if they take the Senate, they won't have anywhere near the 2/3 majority needed to convict him...


So- in essence what the Republicans and Tea Party folks have done with their bi-partisan (tri-partisan) bickering and inability for the House to agree on moving forward with the bipartisan immigration bill the Senate passed is to give Obama and the Democrats a free hand to put into effect whatever immigration rules they want!

And while some Latino's and Dems are temporarily upset at Obama- its sounding like in the long run the Repubs may pick up the most damage by their "do-nothing" attitude of just saying NO and refusing to take any action on that Senate bill...


Demise of the GOP: Backlash for Failure To Act on IMMIGRATION REFORM



By: Moises Apsan
September 5, 2014, 8:11 pm

September 5, 2014 - It’s been a year since the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill with bipartisan backing. The bill would resolve most of the open immigration issues plaguing this country. However, in light of the fact that the Tea Party Republicans have been holding prisoner the House of Representatives by a controlling a faction of the Republican Party for the last few years, the Senate bill has languished this whole time. Tea Party Republicans have pushed the House with a specific end goal, to engage the most supremacist and intolerant areas of their voting base.

Notwithstanding the way that the lion's share of Americans, and an extensive group of Republicans, feel that undocumented immigrants ought to be given a pathway to citizenship, the Tea Party has declined to move. Despite the fact that numerous powerful pioneers in the business, money related and agrarian fields have turned out and backed exhaustive migration change, to a great degree traditionalist wing of the House couldn't care less. Even, after the Congressional Budget Office has assessed that the Senate's bill will cut government planned shortages by $158 billion within one decade.. Notwithstanding, these formidable facts 'Tea Party traditionalists' won't permit this bill to see the House floor.

Full article:
http://news.jornal.us/article-681106.Demise-of-the-GOP-Backlash-for-Failure-To-Act-on-IMMIGRATION-REFORM-.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
Republicans have said all along to secure the border before anything is done on immigration. I agree with them. Any Bill is waste without it..... :roll:
 

Brad S

Well-known member
"On that senate bill" ? BS!!!

Republicans have no constitutional authority to what you call "give Donks free hand for anything. OT reread that steaming pile you posted and delete it.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"reform" in a progressive's mind is "do as we say"

If the Republicans say yes to "reform", it might just mean restricted immigration. Just what OT and his progressive cohorts don't want.

I say, let reform begin..."hope and Change"
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Btw, too seldom do politicians consider simply what is the right thing to do. Those filthy rotten tea party [email protected] correctly assert "the right thing to do with immigration is to first stop the rediculously open border crossings then enforce existing laws, then consider other immigration remedies"

Why does OT continue to parrot the Obama lies? "The tea party just says no" that is a damn lie! Close the border first is the right thing to do, and tea dudes shouldn't compromise with stupidity and dishonesty.

Another lie OT keeps parroting is the dysfunction of congress. It's not congress, it's Obama. Remember when the freedom stealers were f ing up healthcare? 1/6 of the economy? They locked the party that represents half the population out of input, any input. If Obama had any honor or character, he'd realize the dysfunction in congress is his legacy.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Btw, too seldom do politicians consider simply what is the right thing to do. Those filthy rotten tea party [email protected] correctly assert "the right thing to do with immigration is to first stop the rediculously open border crossings then enforce existing laws, then consider other immigration remedies"

Why does OT continue to parrot the Obama lies? "The tea party just says no" that is a damn lie! Close the border first is the right thing to do, and tea dudes shouldn't compromise with stupidity and dishonesty.

Another lie OT keeps parroting is the dysfunction of congress. It's not congress, it's Obama. Remember when the freedom stealers were f ing up healthcare? 1/6 of the economy? They locked the party that represents half the population out of input, any input. If Obama had any honor or character, he'd realize the dysfunction in congress is his legacy.

OT has no regard for the truth. He backs up Buckwheat's lies with those of his own. Then he wonders why he has no credibility?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Btw, too seldom do politicians consider simply what is the right thing to do. Those filthy rotten tea party [email protected] correctly assert "the right thing to do with immigration is to first stop the rediculously open border crossings then enforce existing laws, then consider other immigration remedies"

Why does OT continue to parrot the Obama lies? "The tea party just says no" that is a damn lie! Close the border first is the right thing to do, and tea dudes shouldn't compromise with stupidity and dishonesty.

Another lie OT keeps parroting is the dysfunction of congress. It's not congress, it's Obama. Remember when the freedom stealers were f ing up healthcare? 1/6 of the economy? They locked the party that represents half the population out of input, any input. If Obama had any honor or character, he'd realize the dysfunction in congress is his legacy.

Apparently Brad you have never worked in government or been a board member or nothing--- because how the rules work in this country is that when you are in the minority- you don't get to call the shots! You don't get everything you want...
You try to compromise and work for the best deal you can get... Right now Dems hold 2 of the 3 legs of the legislative stool.. 2 legs had negotiated a bi-partisan agreement (WH and Senate)- but the Tea Party minority of the House stopped the 3rd leg from acting...

And what I'm trying to point out (which is getting you all mad at me) is that by doing nothing-- the Republicans will now probably end up with no say- or none of their compromise issues in the immigration rules Obama will mandate...

And I'm sure Republicans will not like the rules they get- and will whine, cry , beech and moan... But they will get no sympathy from me because they took themselves out of the game when they left the playground and took their ball home....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Then please explain why Harry Reid has over 350 bills that passed the house, most all enjoying bipartisan support, gathering dust on his desk? Talk about doing nothing...you better check what your fellow cult members are up to before you start throwing stones.
 

Steve

Well-known member
because how the rules work in this country is that when you are in the minority- you don't get to call the shots! You don't get everything you want...

unless you are a liberal,.. then you use the courts to further your agenda..

and regulations to stop progress..

so fact is OT,.. the ones making the rules are just government bureaucrats NO ONE voted for..

when have you voted for a federal judge? or a federal government employee?

congress may make the laws.. but government bureaucrats make the rules..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
Btw, too seldom do politicians consider simply what is the right thing to do. Those filthy rotten tea party [email protected] correctly assert "the right thing to do with immigration is to first stop the rediculously open border crossings then enforce existing laws, then consider other immigration remedies"

Why does OT continue to parrot the Obama lies? "The tea party just says no" that is a damn lie! Close the border first is the right thing to do, and tea dudes shouldn't compromise with stupidity and dishonesty.

Another lie OT keeps parroting is the dysfunction of congress. It's not congress, it's Obama. Remember when the freedom stealers were f ing up healthcare? 1/6 of the economy? They locked the party that represents half the population out of input, any input. If Obama had any honor or character, he'd realize the dysfunction in congress is his legacy.

Apparently Brad you have never worked in government or been a board member or nothing--- because how the rules work in this country is that when you are in the minority- you don't get to call the shots! You don't get everything you want...
You try to compromise and work for the best deal you can get... Right now Dems hold 2 of the 3 legs of the legislative stool.. 2 legs had negotiated a bi-partisan agreement (WH and Senate)- but the Tea Party minority of the House stopped the 3rd leg from acting...

And what I'm trying to point out (which is getting you all mad at me) is that by doing nothing-- the Republicans will now probably end up with no say- or none of their compromise issues in the immigration rules Obama will mandate...

And I'm sure Republicans will not like the rules they get- and will whine, cry , beech and moan... But they will get no sympathy from me because they took themselves out of the game when they left the playground and took their ball home....

2 of 3 legs in the legislature carry clout?

What about the 400% more people elected in the House as opposed to the Senate & WH?

You have a warped way of looking at the U.S. Government. If the Dems want to control completely and pass Immigration why don't they just elect all three branches? OH WAIT! They did have all 3 branches when Buckwheat took office but failed to act. :roll: :roll:

Is that the best argument you have.........REALLY??????????????
 

Steve

Well-known member
And what I'm trying to point out (which is getting you all mad at me) is that by doing nothing-- the Republicans will now probably end up with no say- or none of their compromise issues in the immigration rules Obama will mandate...

the 1200 page law supported by almost all the democrats and a few liberal conservatives is full of holes.. any time the liberals say comprehensive means they filled it with enough legal mumbo jumbo that they can get the bureaucrats to make rules they like and the courts to interpete it thier way to allow for rules that the laws never intended.

it delegates the making of the rules to government employees at the whim of a liberal president..

the republican controlled congress PASSED a immigration bill addressing the pressing issues..

but ONE person.. harry reid.. will not take it up for a vote.. because he knows it will hurt them politically in elections as most Americans favor that common sense approach the congress took to the issue..

this is NOT how our government was intended to function..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Then please explain why Harry Reid has over 350 bills that passed the house, most all enjoying bipartisan support, gathering dust on his desk? Talk about doing nothing...you better check what your fellow cult members are up to before you start throwing stones.

Because 2 of the 3 legs did not want them to go any further (WH and Senate)...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
Then please explain why Harry Reid has over 350 bills that passed the house, most all enjoying bipartisan support, gathering dust on his desk? Talk about doing nothing...you better check what your fellow cult members are up to before you start throwing stones.

Because 2 of the 3 legs did not want them to go any further (WH and Senate)...


But it's not OK for the House to not take it up?

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. :roll: It takes ALL THREE to pass a measure. Just like our founders set it up. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
Then please explain why Harry Reid has over 350 bills that passed the house, most all enjoying bipartisan support, gathering dust on his desk? Talk about doing nothing...you better check what your fellow cult members are up to before you start throwing stones.

Because 2 of the 3 legs did not want them to go any further (WH and Senate)...


But it's not OK for the House to not take it up?

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. :roll: It takes ALL THREE to pass a measure. Just like our founders set it up. :roll:

Not if they (Republicans/House) are going to end up with worse than they could have got if they had agreed upon the Senate bill...

Four Republican Senators co-authored the Senate bill (Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.)) and 14 backed the bill after they were able to get some amendments added- including a border security amendment...

Do you really believe Obama is now going to put any of the amendments the Senate Republican's gained thru compromise into his mandated immigration rules he imposes after the election :???:

You've been in that Alabama heat way too long if you think that is going to happen..
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
Then please explain why Harry Reid has over 350 bills that passed the house, most all enjoying bipartisan support, gathering dust on his desk? Talk about doing nothing...you better check what your fellow cult members are up to before you start throwing stones.

Because 2 of the 3 legs did not want them to go any further (WH and Senate)...

Then just who are the "do nothings"??? Or as you like to say, "on an 8 year coffee break"???

Looks to me like the answer to both is your cult.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Well thanks for the civics lesson OT (I mean that with the least sincerity possible), I always appreciate patronizing as a device to shade the truth.
Perhaps you could cite that portion (nonexistent ) of the constitution that buttresses your position. The executive simply can't change laws that were passed by congress and signed into law by the Executive.

What's at play here is leftist play 1a. This narrative,"act cause congress won't" as justification for tyranny from the executive is getting tiresome. Fact is, the house is in league with popular sentiment of the people - that's why Obama won't attempt his power seizure.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Well thanks for the civics lesson OT (I mean that with the least sincerity possible), I always appreciate patronizing as a device to shade the truth.
Perhaps you could cite that portion (nonexistent ) of the constitution that buttresses your position. The executive simply can't change laws that were passed by congress and signed into law by the Executive.

What's at play here is leftist play 1a. This narrative,"act cause congress won't" as justification for tyranny from the executive is getting tiresome. Fact is, the house is in league with popular sentiment of the people - that's why Obama won't attempt his power seizure.


Here is a very interesting part of an article I found on the very conservative The Heritage Foundation website outlining the powers of the President:

Commander in Chief.15 The President's power as Commander in Chief is limited by other constitutional powers granted to Congress, such as the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, make rules (i.e., laws) for the regulation of the armed forces, and provide for calling forth the militia of the several states. However, the President's power as military commander is still very broad with respect to the armed forces at his disposal, including some situations in which Congress has not acted to declare war.

Head of State.16 The President is solely responsible for carrying out foreign policy, which includes the sole power to recognize foreign governments, receive foreign ambassadors, and negotiate treaties. Congress may enact laws affecting foreign policy, and two-thirds of the Senate must ratify any treaty before it becomes binding law, but Congress must still leave the execution of foreign policy and diplomatic relations to the President.


Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"17 and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.18 In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.

Head of the Executive Branch. The Framers debated and rejected the creation of a plural executive. They selected a "unitary executive" and determined that he alone would be vested with "[t]he executive power" of Article II. After much debate, the Framers also determined that the President would nominate and appoint (with the Senate's consent in some cases) all officers in the executive branch. With very few exceptions, all appointed officials who work in the executive branch serve at the will and pleasure of the President, even if Congress has specified a term of years for a particular office.19 All of this was designed to ensure the President's control over officials in the executive branch20 and to promote "energy in the executive."21

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

When the President is lawfully exercising one of these functions,22 the scope of his power to issue written directives is exceedingly broad. In short, he may issue or execute whatever written directives, orders, guidelines (such as prosecutorial guidelines or nondiscriminatory enforcement policies), communiqués, dispatches, or other instructions he deems appropriate.

The President also may issue directives in the exercise of his statutorily delegated authority, unless Congress has specified in law that the statutory power may be exercised only in a particular way. A few examples of Congress's conditional grant of statutory authority are mentioned herein, but as previously explained, there are limits to how far Congress can go in an attempt to micromanage even the President's statutorily delegated authority.23 For example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

In sum, a President has broad discretion to use written directives when he is lawfully exercising one of his constitutional or statutorily delegated powers. Any broad power or discretion can be abused, but it would be wrong to confuse such potential or real abuse with the many legitimate uses.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

As you will see- Presidents have a lot of authority over law enforcement issues- and just like the Sheriff (the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county) has broad discretion over enforcement- so does the President as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the nation... And immigration/illegals would be considered law enforcement...

In fact the Heritage's constitution expert believes there is more discretionary power than I had ever thought... But if not- he still has the constitutionally given pardon power:


Pardon Power


The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1



The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. A reprieve is the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. A pardon, however, completely wipes out the legal effects of a conviction. A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed, and can even be issued after the full sentence has been served. It cannot, however, be granted before an offense has been committed, which would give the President the power to waive the laws.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power

Brad- what are the Republicans going to do if Obama does as I believe he will in November-- use executive mandates to do a broad sweep grant of immunity (pardon) to all illegal immigrants in the country :???:

Impeach? Like the article above says- the House can impeach- but the Senate will never come up with the 2/3 majority to convict- so it would be like farting in the wind..

Sue him? Look at the speed the current House suit is moving- all they've done is hired the lawyers and committed a bunch of tax dollars :roll: Won't have any decision until Obama is long out of office ...

You may not like it- and I may not like it-- but the House royally screwed up and gave up a lot to the Dems this time...
 

Brad S

Well-known member
A pardon may relieve sanction for previously infracted laws. A pardon can't make you a citizen. He can pardon a shoplifter for what he boosted yesterday, but he will need another pardon tomorrow. Nothing, nowhere gives Obama the power to change laws or he wouldn't wait until after an election.

Have you noticed how many of obamas scurvy maneuvers take effect after the election? Pretty low opinion of the people is fundamental totalitarianism.

Speaking of pardons, get ready for the avalanche of pardons as this reprobate's term draws to an end. And the predictable nonsense trying to draw equivalency cause somebody else did something so it's a nonissue.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
As long as we agree the heritage foundation is the go to place for truth:


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions


1. Abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral action has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration.
2. When Congress refuses to accede to President Obama’s liberal policies, the Administration often ignores the restraints imposed on the executive branch by the Constitution in order to impose “laws” by executive fiat.
3. When the Administration disagrees with duly enacted laws or finds it politically expedient not to enforce them, it often ignores them, skirts them, or claims the Executive has prosecutorial discretion not to enforce them rather than fulfilling its constitutional obligation to take care that those laws be faithfully executed.
4. Examples include suspending implementation of the Obamacare employer mandate, abdicating the Administration’s duty to defend the law in court, implementing the DREAM Act, and unconstitutional “recess” appointments.
5. As the Framers understood, the “accumulation of all powers … in the same hands” is the “very definition of tyranny.”

The "VERY DEFINITION OF TYRANNY" isn't a positive legacy to us wingernut radical racist crazy ... (Could you guys devise a dismissive slur acronym, it'd be so much easier)
 
Top