What's up with that Executive Action?
 

I am still trying to figure out why immigration has become the chosen battle front. Kind of reminds me of the scene from Blazing Saddles when Cleavon Little holds his own gun to his head and says "Hold it! Next man makes a move" ....well, you've likely seen the movie. Only this time all sides are holding their guns to their heads.

Maybe we need AI to give us "We in here talking about immigration, not the economy, immigration. Not jobs creation, immigration. Not deficit spending, immigration. Not tax reform, immigration. Not tort reform, immigration."

5 million more D votes. Nothing else to say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't worry about it more then 50% of that 4-5 million will not be coming out...this is suppose to be temporary.....they do not trust pinocchio and worried that next president will recind.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

What this means, is that it doesn't mean anything to EmperorObama, the supposed constitutional law professor, what happens when congress approves a law and another president signs it. Obama has granted to himself the authority to unilaterally eradicate duly constituted laws. So much for separation of powers.

Why do we need Congress, exactly?

What some Kool Aid drinkers are saying is that Reagan and Bush did the same thing. Wrong. What Reagan and Bush did, was to close loopholes in existing laws, to prevent unintended consequences. One of those laws gave parents the right to stay, but would have resulted in the deportation of babies, so when Bush used executive authority to fix that, he wasn't changing the intent of the law.

Obama is, with the wave of his hand, reversing duly constituted laws. Kudos to El Duce Obama.

Constitution, shmonstitution. From now own, laws only exist if the President likes them.

So since other executive actions have been over turned by the courts this one should be also if it's unconstitutional. Ordering Japanese Americans to camps, nationalizing steel mills or ending racial segregation in our schools weren't the minor things you implied above. You being "wicked smart" should know that (or was it "wicked successful")?

Anyone can file a lawsuit to get this over turned if they think it's illegal or I guess the constitution can be changed to prevent this in the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anyone can file a constitutional law suit in the Supreme Court only if they have standing--which it would be difficult to do in the case of presidential executive action. Even Congress would find it difficult, if not impossible. The Court has narrowed, over time, the ability to bring suits, perhaps for political reasons, or perhaps to keep from being inundated with suits.

It was, ultimately, left up to the branches of government, specifically the Congressional and Executive, to protect their own turf. When Congress doesn't do so for fear of public opinion and losing a next election, it abrogates its own power and sets a loose precedent for the Executive branch to usurp and steal that power from Congress. This is exacerbated even further by politics being played even within the Congress itself. If enough of the President's party in Congress backs him up rather than protecting the congressional power exclusively given in the Constitution, nothing can be done to stop the transfer of power from Congress to the President. And bad precedents will be set to justify future Presidents, even from the opposition party, from doing the same. It erodes the constitutional order and creates the haphazard ideological governance that we increasingly drift into. Or, perhaps, we INTENTIONALLY are driven into by ideologues who want to destroy the constitutional order and replace it with rule by ideological elites through a purely administrative governance by an all powerful unitary central government. One which has no inconvenient obstacles such as separation of powers, or even a Constitution which prescribes that separation.

Here is an article on the "standing" required to bring lawsuit which might interest you:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/07/wh...utive-actions/

Based on what I am hearing about issues with registering Latinos for ACA coverage, I think 50% may be a significant overestimate. One more reason why this seems to be a very unwise battleground everybody has selected. Other than posturing for 2016 I don't see the political endgame. Most days I think every senator and congressman/woman should be reminded that we are a republic and they are to represent everybody not just the majority or plurality that elected them.

"So since other executive actions have been over turned by the courts this one should be also if it's unconstitutional."

True.

"ending racial segregation in our schools"

Paul, are you seriously drawing a moral equivalence between laws that said blacks couldn't drink from the white water fountain, and laws that say we need to monitor who enters our country? Wow...

I am wicked smaht. Especially compared to some.

"Anyone can file a lawsuit to get this over turned"

Except as we know, and as El Duce is certainly counting on, anyone who crosses the emperor, is labeled an obstructionist racist by every TV station except one. He knows he has a lot of political cover.

I recall Obama had a democratic super majority in congress, for a fair portion of his first 2 years. I wonder why he never touched this issue then? Why now, after the American people have spoken very clearly, and yet their recently elected officials haven't been sworn in yet?

If the Republican House has any stones at all, they'll deny funding, and tell Obama if he wants to do this, he can pay for it out of his own pocket.

This is what you get when you elect a guy whose (1) wife hates this country, (2) spiritual mentor is a deranged lunatic who hates this country, and (3) whose first political sponsor is a terrorist.

Decades from now, people will ask of our generation, how the heck did this guy get elected to anything, let alone to the most important job in the world, when he had zero past accomplishments, except to make people get out of his way because he is black?

Viva El Duce!

Healthcare was the priority and I'd wager he thought immigration reform had more bi-partisan support. At least before the tea party it appeared as though it did.

Congress can't really de-fund the action without compromising efforts to deport the higher priority criminals etc...

All this action did was just move a group to the end of the line. It doesn't really provide for any new benefits or change any laws. If anything the significance is in the scale, but previous Presidents have gone much deeper via executive action. The odds of a Constitutional issue aren't looking good at the moment.

How much of this is really just about Obama? If he simply did what Reagan or Bush 41 did you'd be having the same hater fits.

The bottom line is that there will still be plenty of illegal immigrants out there to send home.

Did I say that?

I read that you Implied that other exec action was for minor things and I used those examples to show that some major things where accomplished by exec action. (Even though the steel mills was overturned in court).

It sounds like you think the water fountain order was a larger issue this than this?

I always enjoy your posts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is hilarious from Homeland Security.....http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction

Executive Actions on Immigration

Español

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions to crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes in order to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

These initiatives include:

Expanding the population eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to young people who came to this country before turning 16 years old and have been present since January 1, 2010, and extending the period of DACA and work authorization from two years to three years | Details

Allowing parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have been present in the country since January 1, 2010, to request deferred action and employment authorization for three years, in a new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program, provided they pass required background checks | Details

Expanding the use of provisional waivers of unlawful presence to include the spouses and sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents and the sons and daughters of U.S. citizens | Details

Modernizing, improving and clarifying immigrant and nonimmigrant programs to grow our economy and create jobs | Details

Promoting citizenship education and public awareness for lawful permanent residents and providing an option for naturalization applicants to use credit cards to pay the application fee | Details



cracking down on illegal immigration at the border huh???:doh:

the ball is in your court craziness

"I'd wager he thought immigration reform had more bi-partisan support"

Where to start. He was caught on video repeatedly during his first 2 years, saying that he couldn't implement immigration reform by executive action.

Nothing he does has bipartisan support, because his every thought and instinct are to the left of Mao, and he refuses to admit he's wrong on anything. He hasn't been the uniter we were expecting.

"
The bottom line is that there will still be plenty of illegal immigrants out there to send home"

No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that El Duce doesn't think current codified laws are valid unless he happens to like them. Previously passed laws only exist if he allows it.

I still haven't heard why this is bigger than what other Pres. have done - like with Pres. Reagan and Bush and their executive action on Immigration.

Here's my opinion on that. From what I can gather (could be wrong) neither Bush nor Reagan acted in a way that obviously undermined the clear intent of existing federal law.

Did either Bush or Reagan issue an executive order that driectly nullified existing, duly constituted, federal law?

I can't stand 95% of what Obama does, I'll be the first to admit I'm biased here.

Constitutionally, it' scary. But it was a brilliant political move, it allows Obama to give the middle finger to everyone who voted for a Republican (we know he doesn't tolerate opposition or criticism well) and it backs the GOP into a very tough corner. Anything they do will be portrayed on every TV station except one, as being bigoted against Latinos. It was equally astute and slimy.

All the action does is move law abiding illegal immigrants to the back of the line and allow illegal parents of US citizens who have lived here for 5 years, pay taxes and can pass a background check the ability to stay and work...so the federal government can focus it's resources on border security and deportation the higher priority illegal immigrants like criminals.

How is this undermining federal law?

So you are not sure why this is different (and I'm not sure if it is or isn't) but yet you call Pres. Obama the term which refers to a facist dictator. You're miserable.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...tive-action-on

Congressional Republicans are outraged that President Obama may take executive action on immigration reform after the mid-term elections—perhaps by deferring deportations and providing work authorization to millions of unauthorized immigrants with strong family ties to the United States. However, past Republican presidents have not been shy to use the White House’s power to retool immigration policy. In fact, Obama could learn a lot from presidents Ronald Reagan’s and George H. W. Bush’s executive actions to preserve the unity of immigrant families, and move past Congressional refusal to enact immigration reform.

The story begins on November 6, 1986, when Reagan signed the last comprehensive legalization bill to pass Congress. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) gave up to 3 million unauthorized immigrants a path to legalization if they had been “continuously” present in the U.S. since January 1, 1982. But the new law excluded their spouses and children who didn’t qualify. As the Senate Judiciary Committee stated at the time, “the families of legalized aliens…will be required to ‘wait in line’.”


Immediately, these split-eligibility families became the most polarizing national immigration issue. U.S. Catholic bishops criticized the government’s “separation of families," especially given Reagan’s other pro-family stances. In early 1987, members of Congress introduced legislation to legalize family members, but without success.

Shortly after Congress’ failure, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) commissioner Alan Nelson announced he was “exercising the Attorney General’s discretion” to assure that children would “be covered” by legalization. The administration granted a blanket deferral of deportation (logistically similar to today’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) for children under 18 who were living in a two-parent household with both parents legalizing, or with a single parent who was legalizing.

Lawmakers and advocates, however, urged Reagan to go further. Spouses and some children who had one parent able to legalize but not the other remained unprotected. A California immigrants’ rights group called this “contrary to the American tradition of keeping families together.” And as Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) told the INS, “If you have the discretion to protect children, why not a family?"

In July 1989, the Senate moved to protect a bigger group—all spouses and children of those who legalized under IRCA. The Senate passed legislation 81-17 that prohibited the administration from deporting family members of immigrants in the process of legalizing and directed officials to grant them work authorization. The House failed to act on the Senate’s bill.

George Bush Sr. then responded in February 1990 by administratively implementing the Senate bill’s provisions himself. As Bush’s INS Commissioner, Gene McNary, stated: “It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. However, we can enforce the law humanely. To split families encourages further violations of the law as they reunite.” Under Bush’s “family fairness” policy, applicants had to meet certain criteria, and reapply to the INS every year for extensions.
The Bush administration anticipated its family fairness program could help enormous numbers of immigrants—up to 1.5 million family members, which amounted to over 40 percent of the 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. at the time.

After the Bush administration moved, the House followed. In March 1990, 33 House members introduced legislation with similar provisions to stay deportation of family members. In October, Congress then passed a combined Immigration Act of 1990, with a permanent “Family Unity” provision. The Act broadened Bush’s family fairness policy to include children under 21 and increased family immigration visas, ultimately providing more families a path to citizenship.

If voters thought Bush overstepped his authority, the midterm elections didn’t show it. In 1990, the Republicans lost a scant nine House seats and one Senate seat (out of 33 up for election)—far lower than average midterm losses by a president’s party. Bush then signed the Act in November, hailing it as continuing “support for the family as the essential unit of society” and “our tradition of family reunification.” (Bush did issue a signing statement reserving the “authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion in suitable immigration cases.”)

The success of the Reagan-Bush family fairness policy serves as a strikingly similar historical precedent for Obama. Bush Sr. “went big” to treat families fairly—deferring deportations for over 40 percent of unauthorized immigrants. Reportedly, Obama’s actions could be similarly broad and help up to 5 million immigrants—over 40 percent of today’s unauthorized population. Bush Sr.’s actions gave immigrants a safe haven and spurred the House to act without negative impacts in the subsequent midterms. And the Reagan-Bush fairness policy deferred deportations to protect families, compared to previous uses of presidential authority to protect war refugees or immigrants stranded by a foreign policy crisis.

We don’t know what executive action Obama will take. But we can say with certainty that presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush led the way.

Noferi is an enforcement fellow at the American Immigration Council.

"abiding illegal immigrants"...kind of an oxymoron, but I know what you're saying.

It undermines federal law, because federal law says they are supposed to be deported.

Spence, whet would you say to an ACTUAL law-abiding person, living in some oppressive sh*thole in Central America, who is playing by the rules and waiting for years for a chance to come legally? How is it fair to him that he has to wait, given that so many people illegally ut him in line, and now we reward those people? What would you say to such a person?

Here's what liberals, in general, struggle with...we're supposed to reward bad behavior, and encourage responsible behavior. This does the exact opposite.

PaulS, I am vagueky aware of what Bush and Reagan did, and your article (written with a certain political slant, I think you'd agree) seems to support what I thought I knew.

I saw, on the Sunday morning talk shows, a former US Congressman (representing the opposite political slant) say specifically that Congress never intended to write a law that would seperate families. And that the executive action was taken to close an unintended, unethical loophole. If your article is true, and that Congress explicitly chose not to protect the families, then what Obama did doesn't appear that different from what Bush did.

In that case, I don't like what either did, OK? Is that consistent enough for you? I wasn't able to vote back then, so excuse me if I wasn't protesting those actions, if indeed they were similar. Does that still make me a hypocrite? I don't think so.

I call Obama a facist (with slight hyperbole, as I am sure you are aware) because, in my opinion, he is. He clearly favors something a lot closer to socialism than I will ever be comfortable with. I believe that sovereign debt (the feds and the states) is by far, the #2 domestic policy issue, after national security. Obama (in part due to th ewars he inherited, in part due to his actions) has added more to the debt than almost all prior presidents combined. He shows zero concern for that. Nor has he done anything to address socal security and medicare's impending collapse, except to say that anyone who says out loud that those programs are in deep trouble, hates old people and poor people.



I'm not "miserable". I can't stand anything that Obama stands for. At the same time, I'm the happiest, most affable guy you'd ever meet. Not sure why you can csll me miserable, but I can't call Obama El Duce. Perhaps you can explain that.

The act doesn't say anyone is never going to be deported. All it does is prioritize the criminal and recent illegal aliens over law abiding illegal immigrants.

I believe there's some 7 million who don't have a chance to be covered by the act and we only have resources to deport about 400,000 a year.

So you'd rather break up a law abiding and taxpaying family because it's convenient versus spend your resources stopping people at the border or deporting violent criminals?

Why the House couldn't act on this is beyond me...oh what, I think I know :smash:

"The act doesn't say anyone is never going to be deported." Is that true? Not what I thought.

"Why the House couldn't act on this is beyond me"

The GOP does need to come up with something there. Starting with securing the borders, because if we're all dead, I'm not sure our immigration policies matter. Spence, do you have front door on your house? If so, why is that?

Spence, I notice that you absolutely, completely dodged my question about what you'd say to someone who is genuinely suffering because they are playing by the rules. Zip from you on that.

"you'd rather break up a law abiding and taxpaying family "

I don't want to break them up. But I want a process that's based on common sense and compassion, not a policy built around maximizing the future voting block of the Democrats.

And for your education, the "illegals" are by definition not law abiding, and many don't pay income taxes as they have no SS#.

What better mechanism to increase border security than focus agents on that rather then deporting people here working any paying taxes. I believe undocumented workers account for some $12B every year.

As for it being fair to those playing by the rules, I think you have to draw the line somewhere. Deporting everybody isn't practical. Optimizing your resources is critical. By kicking the can down the road you can better address some short-term needs without really giving anything up.

"What better mechanism to increase border security than focus agents on that " Easy, a barrier/wall.

"rather then deporting people here working any paying taxes. I believe undocumented workers account for some $12B every year."

There you have it, folks! According to Spence, it's a great investment to let these folks stay, because of the taxes they pay. Thus, according to Spence, when doing a cost/benefit analysis, you should focus on the benefits and ignore the costs!! We can change the name to a "benefit analysis"! According to Spence, a "balance sheet" only needs the left side, we can totally ignore the right side. Nope, no need to worry about the fortune in costs that go along with letting these people stay (increased public schools, social services, fire, police, etc). Spence, if your math had a shred of validity, the state of California would be running enormous surpluses. Instead, they are going bankrupt, in large part because what these people kick in is nothing compared to what they take out. You claim to work in some kind of financial capacity? Whew!

"I think you have to draw the line somewhere."

True. No rational person wants to deport all these people, but we have to stop the flood of them coming in. Your party won't agree to that, because that flood increases your voting base, and once there are enough of them that Texas goes blue, we can stop having Presidential elections, because there's no point, just hand it to whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

"By kicking the can down the road you can better address some short-term needs "

Another cornerstone of liberalism, kicking the can down the road, especially as respects Social Securoty and Medicare. And your strategy of "kicking the can down the road" has just worked peachy as regards those programs.

What the left desperately wants to "give up", is the notion that breaking the rules has consequences, and playing by the rules (even when it's not convenient) has rewards. But now we know it's OK to cut in line ahead of people who were there first.

Interesting read this week was this may result in Roberts leaning away from supporting the executive branch. ACA may be on the docket in the not too distant future as well as the executive action on immigration. It's one thing to bait congress, it's another to mess with the court. This could be getting very interesting.

Spence . . . come on. Is there any "there" in what you said? The words just swirl around in a high-toned kind of conference talk that really doesn't get anywhere.

"Practical" for what and for whom? And on what basis? Allowing multi-millions to stay must be practical for somebody with some "agenda." Otherwise, this wouldn't have happened.

"Optimizing your resources is critical" sounds like desperation. This situation has been allowed to happen over time without applying the proper resources to stop it . . . and it is now "critical"? And we can now say, OK, it's so "critical" that it wouldn't be "practical" to do much about it and mostly just accept it as a "new norm"? We can, like the Wizard of Oz, pull some levers behind the curtain and pass an "executive order" which by proclamation fixes it. And there is that sneaky undercurrent also emanating from behind the screen of the fix--"don't let a crisis go to waste." The Wizard magically fixes the "critical" problem with a wave of his executive wand, in the meantime making the crisis a "practical" tool for furthering his agenda of rule by smoke and mirrors rather than by some old restrictive rule of law. He magically becomes even more powerful, and seemingly all-wise and leads a new multi-million cadre into the sphere of his party. He has "kicked the can down the road" for a temporary practical gain, and by not "really giving anything up" he has "drawn the line" created by the crisis and moved closer to his party's agenda of fairness and equality for a borderless world.

unprecedented....this is not the Washington Times, this is the Obama friendly WashPo editorial board

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


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ff8_story.html

there's a line in my video game that says:

"I've heard about you and your honeyed words..."

that is Barry's Biggest accomplishment... and too many fell for it.