Re: Executive Order On Immigration Imminent

News Buzzard Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:45 am

Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action on immigration:

http://americasvoice.org/blog/icymi-every-u-s-president-since-dwight-eisenhower-taken-executive-action-immigration/

Now all of a sudden it's unconstitutional for Obama to do it. Rolling Eyes

News Hawk Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:13 am

News Buzzard wrote:Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action on immigration:

http://americasvoice.org/blog/icymi-every-u-s-president-since-dwight-eisenhower-taken-executive-action-immigration/

Now all of a sudden it's unconstitutional for Obama to do it.

I have no objection to immigration—how could I—when my family was part of it?

scratch

.

Outerlimits Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:24 am

News Buzzard wrote:Reagan and Bush (41) also did it:

http://news.yahoo.com/reagan-bush-acted-alone-shield-immigrants-171420251.html

But Obama will poison the well if he does it.

Reagan and Bush didn’t do it by executive order.

News Pigeon wrote:Yeah but...Reagan and Bush aren't black Kenyans.....

Nice

News Pigeon Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:07 am

Outerlimits wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:Yeah but...Reagan and Bush aren't black Kenyans.....

Nice

Yeah, that was my reaction too when I first heard TEA-baggers make that claim..... Rolling Eyes

News Buzzard Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:07 pm

Outerlimits wrote:Reagan and Bush didn’t do it by executive order.

They certainly did!! Corrective legislation came after Bush's order.

http://news.yahoo.com/reagan-bush-acted-alone-shield-immigrants-171420251.html

You cannot say that Obama is acting without precedent, and any action to stop him by the extremists in Congress will certainly fail! Cool

Outerlimits Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:56 pm

Reagan and Bush had the consent from both parties to do what they did and the American people did not object. Presidents Reagan and Bush were in lockstep with the congressional majority in what they wanted to do.

Reagan did not unilaterally shield illegal immigrants. He made a deal with the worthless liberals who lied and went back on that deal. In exchange for the amnesty the Democrats were supposed to fund the border security. They didn’t

Bush 41 did not unilaterally shield illegal immigrants either His actions were to coincide with making the amnesty that had already been approved.

The most important thing here is both Reagan & Bush passed the law that congress approved.

This is different because of the fact that Obama is talking about a new amnesty and he is publically and purposefully going around Congress.

With all that being said, both Reagan and Bush should not have allowed amnesty. It was a huge mistake on both their parts. Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will not help Americans.

News Buzzard Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:42 pm

The House has been sitting on the bipartisan Senate bill for nearly a year and a half, so the only difference between now and 25 years ago is that the Republicans have become a bunch of intransigent lunatics!! elephant

An executive order is just that, regardless of whether the Congress likes it or not, so you have no argument against the precedent set by Reagan and Bush. (and others)

Outerlimits Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:23 pm

You started this thread with stating Obama to issue EO that should drive the Republicans crazy.

Your statement highlights the difference between what President Reagan did and what Obama may attempt.

President Reagan had the support of the Congress and the support of the people.

Obama has neither.

Obama is acting on what he says he believes is the right thing to do. Few agree with him.

This action is considered by most to be against the best interest of Americans. It appears to be an action of a sore loser that is doing something out of spite. Kind of like why you started this thread. You couldn’t convey the benefits to Americans for granting amnesty to millions of illegals, you just liked the fact it would piss off Republicans.

News Buzzard Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:02 pm

You must have forgotten that Obama has the support of a bipartisan vote in the Senate on immigration reform, but the lunatic fringe in the House (controlled by Senator Cruz) doesn't want any part of it. The lunatics are the ones who will be teed off, so let them take their best shot at shutting down the government or impeachment. It's almost like voting to repeal Obamacare over 50 times. What did they accomplish and prove by that futile mission? I have never seen such whackos like the Tea Party hijack this government. They have not contributed one positive thing in bringing our unemployment rate down to 5.8% and they haven't done a damn thing toward getting millions of people health insurance. Don't look for Obama to cave to the lunatic fringe anytime soon so we'll be rocking and rolling for 2 more years. The House wasn't going to do anything anyway so nothing changes with the Republicans in charge of the Senate. Harry Reid now gets to return the favor with the use of the filibuster and Obama has the veto pens loaded up with ink in case anything reaches his desk. In the meantime the economy will get better on Obama's watch, no thanks to the Republican party. Rolling Eyes

News Pigeon Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:25 pm

Outerlimits wrote:

This action is considered by most to be against the best interest of Americans. It appears to be an action of a sore loser that is doing something out of spite. Kind of like why you started this thread. You couldn’t convey the benefits to Americans for granting amnesty to millions of illegals, you just liked the fact it would piss off Republicans.

You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried! The American people WANT Congress to act on these matters and it isn't as black & white as you try to paint it.

BTW since when do liberals have to DO anything to "piss off" a Republican, I thought they just naturally came that way!! Greedy, sour and self-centered....

Outerlimits Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:43 pm

In our government, bills must pass both Houses before it ends up on the President’s desk. It does not matter what the Executive branch supports if it does not pass both FIRST. How can you honestly point fingers at the so called “Tea Party Whackos” in the House for not bringing 1 constitutionally questionable bill to the floor when Harry Reid never brought 350+ bipartisan bills to vote in the Senate?

You can’t –at least not honestly.

It is very clear what group has hijacked our government and it equally clear that Obama is attempting to go around Congress, not because it is lawful, but because he knows he can get away with it.

Obama is a lame duck; anything he attempts to do over the next two years will be to the detriment of his own party. It’s impossible to look at political landscape both Federal and State and see anything else. His legacy will be one of division, failure, scandal and lies.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how Obama amnesty will benefit Americans.

The people want immigration reform, they want our borders closed and they don’t want amnesty. Obama is making this a priority, while Americans put immigration reform well down the list of priorities.

**WHL** Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:52 pm

Give up, Outer. They must live in a different America than we do. To say most Americans want what Obama is doing is crazy!!

Outerlimits Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:01 pm

I know WHL, how can you have a reasonable debate with people that believe the POTUS is a victim?

**WHL** Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:02 pm

You can't have a reasonable conversation with them. Talk about biased.

News Buzzard Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:20 pm

Outerlimits wrote: How can you honestly point fingers at the so called “Tea Party Whackos” in the House for not bringing 1 constitutionally questionable bill to the floor when Harry Reid never brought 350+ bipartisan bills to vote in the Senate?

That's a lot of Bunk!

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/boehners-bipartisan-bunk/

News Hawk Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:16 pm

News Hawk Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:48 am

Obama’s frank statements written in 2006, he was eying a run for the presidency.

“Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt” to social changes caused by migration, he said.

“And if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments,” Obama wrote. “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

President Barack Obama declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
—Daily Caller

.

obervantone Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:36 am

Cherry picking...AGAIN...

But with the public in a sour mood, their fears and anxieties fed daily by Lou Dobbs and talk radio hosts around the country, I can't say I'm surprised that the compromise bill has been stalled in the House ever since it passed out of the Senate. And if I'm honest with myself, I must admit that I'm not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.

But ultimately the danger to our way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of Cristina and her family-- if we withhold from them the rights and opportunities that we take for granted, and tolerate the hypocrisy of a servant class in our midst; or more broadly, if we stand idly by as America continues to become increasingly unequal, an inequality that tracks racial lines and therefore feeds racial strife and which, as the country becomes more black and brown, neither our democracy nor our economy can long withstand. That's not the future I want for Cristina, I said to myself as I watched her and her family wave good-bye. That's not the future I want for my daughters.

Their America will be more dizzying in its diversity, its culture more polyglot. My daughters will learn Spanish and be the better for it. Cristina will learn about Rosa Parks and understand that the life of a black seamstress speaks to her own. The issues my girls and Cristina confront may lack the stark moral clarity of a segregated bus, but in one form or another their generation will surely be tested-- just as Mrs. Parks was tested and the Freedom Riders were tested, just as we are all tested-- by those voices that would divide us and have us turn on each other. And when they are tested in that way, I hope Cristina and my daughters will have all read about the history of this country and will recognize they have been given something precious. America is big enough to accommodate all their dreams

Talk about media bias, narcissistic talking heads and getting basic facts wrong...
http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-entire-staff-of-the-daily-caller

News Hawk Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:50 am

obervantone wrote:Cherry picking...AGAIN...
But with the public in a sour mood, their fears and anxieties fed daily by Lou Dobbs and talk radio hosts around the country, I can't say I'm surprised that the compromise bill has been stalled in the House ever since it passed out of the Senate. And if I'm honest with myself, I must admit that I'm not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.

But ultimately the danger to our way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of Cristina and her family-- if we withhold from them the rights and opportunities that we take for granted, and tolerate the hypocrisy of a servant class in our midst; or more broadly, if we stand idly by as America continues to become increasingly unequal, an inequality that tracks racial lines and therefore feeds racial strife and which, as the country becomes more black and brown, neither our democracy nor our economy can long withstand. That's not the future I want for Cristina, I said to myself as I watched her and her family wave good-bye. That's not the future I want for my daughters.

Their America will be more dizzying in its diversity, its culture more polyglot. My daughters will learn Spanish and be the better for it. Cristina will learn about Rosa Parks and understand that the life of a black seamstress speaks to her own. The issues my girls and Cristina confront may lack the stark moral clarity of a segregated bus, but in one form or another their generation will surely be tested-- just as Mrs. Parks was tested and the Freedom Riders were tested, just as we are all tested-- by those voices that would divide us and have us turn on each other. And when they are tested in that way, I hope Cristina and my daughters will have all read about the history of this country and will recognize they have been given something precious. America is big enough to accommodate all their dreams
Talk about media bias, narcissistic talking heads and getting basic facts wrong...
http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-entire-staff-of-the-daily-caller

Over the weekend, I watched the Green Bay Packers on TV. In the last quarter, they dropped Green Bay Packers coverage, and instantly moved their viewers to the Arizona Cardinals.

scratch

Like "Progressives", would I be correct that "They know what's good for us"?

drunken

.

obervantone Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:57 am

News Hawk
Over the weekend, I watched the Green Bay Packers on TV. In the last quarter, they dropped Green Bay Packers coverage, and instantly moved their viewers to the Arizona Cardinals.

scratch

Like "Progressives", would I be correct that "They know what's good for us"?

Really? U-S policy should be based on what the NFL does?

The part you left out is the announcement "due to contractual obligations" as they switched to the Arizona game...meaning they were legally obligated to do that or did you miss that clause when you signed the contract...what's that?...you didn't sign a contract with the NFL to watch the Green Bay game?

I thought you said you did not have a TV.

This has exactly what to do with the cherry picking and taking statements out of context that you constantly do to make the "facts" fit your misguided view of the world?

News Pigeon Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:20 pm

News Hawk Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:39 pm

obervantone wrote:
News Hawk
Over the weekend, I watched the Green Bay Packers on TV. In the last quarter, they dropped Green Bay Packers coverage, and instantly moved their viewers to the Arizona Cardinals.

scratch

Like "Progressives", would I be correct that "They know what's good for us"?
Really? U-S policy should be based on what the NFL does?

The part you left out is the announcement "due to contractual obligations" as they switched to the Arizona game...meaning they were legally obligated to do that or did you miss that clause when you signed the contract...what's that?...you didn't sign a contract with the NFL to watch the Green Bay game?

I thought you said you did not have a TV.

This has exactly what to do with the cherry picking and taking statements out of context that you constantly do to make the "facts" fit your misguided view of the world?

1) It wasn't my TV (in Miami)

2) I saw the announcement.

3) The effect was the same. "Contractual Obligations" are the same as "Liberals know what's good for you". I'd rather they don't mess things up.

pirat

.

News Hawk Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:28 pm

File this under always double-check before hitting send. As reporters fell over themselves Wednesday morning to confirm the breaking news that President Obama had plans to announce his immigration executive order Thursday and expand upon it Friday, some received an e-mail confirmation by mistake. AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser inadvertently forwarded an e-mail intended for immigration activists to a long list of national reporters, including several at The Washington Post.
— The Washington Post

Who'd a thunk it?

Shocked

Anti Federalist Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:38 pm

News Buzzard wrote:the rescue of the automakers...to be smashing success stories.

You consider sticking guns in people's faces to get cash to "rescue" the rich elites of a failed company a success?

Anti Federalist Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:06 am

Just another lap in the race to the bottom.

A third world tyranny.

Meanwhile cops continue to shake down innocent people and steal their cash.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/11/12/policing-for-profit-in-tennessee

Sponsored content

Executive Order On Immigration Imminent