The Immigration/Amnesty (Executive Order) Thread

[Dead Duck]

I guess it is projection. Because he has never done [STRIKE]manual[/STRIKE] Manuel labor, he doesn't think anyone else has either.

FIFY

 

[T.Lex]

I've done manual labor. Worked in a (non-union) factory, done landscaping, done food services. Most of the time alongside people of dubious immigration history.

I don't do that work any more. They do.

I suspect that those INGOers who have done that kind of manual labor in the past, do not still do it.

On a related note, if I described someone who was hard-working, religious, believed in a strong family, was charitable, and tried to make a better future for themselves and their kids, most people (especially around here) would consider that person conservative.

I think immigrants - however you want to label them - are a better fit for conservative politics than liberal. IMHO.

 

[pudly]

I think immigrants - however you want to label them - are a better fit for conservative politics than liberal. IMHO.

Neither their voting record nor willingness to be bought by various forms of public assistance would support this.

 

[T.Lex]

I cannot argue past statistics, except to say correlation is not causation.

IMHO, the R's have done a [very] poor job of pointing out where the better fit is.

Moreover, recent conservative victors in areas with significant immigrant population suggest that tide is turning.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Obama?s flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration - The Washington Post

Basically Obama is saying "I want this, this and this passed. Congress has no choice here, the American people have no choice. Either you do what I want or I'll take it." We already have immigration laws in this country, the President is refusing to enforce them in violation of Article 2 Section 5 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the "Faithful Execution Clause"

The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause. This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President, even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.

 

[pudly]

I cannot argue past statistics, except to say correlation is not causation.

IMHO, the R's have done a [very] poor job of pointing out where the better fit is.

They've haven't tried to buy votes as Democrats have.

Moreover, recent conservative victors in areas with significant immigrant population suggest that tide is turning.

I'd read that as disgust with the current administration.

 

[T.Lex]

I'd read that as disgust with the current administration.

Momentum starts in many ways.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Obama on Unilateral Amnesty in 2011: ‘That’s Not How Our Democracy Functions. That’s Not How Our Constitution Is Written.’

 

[OakRiver]

Obama?s flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration - The Washington Post

Basically Obama is saying "I want this, this and this passed. Congress has no choice here, the American people have no choice. Either you do what I want or I'll take it." We already have immigration laws in this country, the President is refusing to enforce them in violation of Article 2 Section 5 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the "Faithful Execution Clause"

As a Constitutional scholar I'm sure that this is the first that the POTUS is hearing about this

Obama on Unilateral Amnesty in 2011: ‘That’s Not How Our Democracy Functions. That’s Not How Our Constitution Is Written.’

There have been more flip flops by the POTUS than in the Corona ad
[video=youtube;U2QWA5l8N34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2QWA5l8N34[/video]

 

[AA&E]

FIFY

LMAO! That is oh so wrong, and I feel somewhat bad for laughing out loud when I read it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Obama to announce immigration order on Friday in Las Vegas

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/535078754268499968

AMNESTY A-COMIN'



Senate Dems Carper and King say Obama should not unilaterally issue new immigration law this year.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/obama-immigration-plan-112993.html?hp=l1_3

 

[OakRiver]

Obama to announce immigration order on Friday in Las Vegas

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/535078754268499968

AMNESTY A-COMIN'



Senate Dems Carper and King say Obama should not unilaterally issue new immigration law this year.

GOP waits for Obama?s order on immigration - Jennifer Epstein and James Hohmann and Seung Min Kim - POLITICO

Appropriate setting, because that is a heck of a gamble he is taking.

It's a good thing he was sincere about giving the Republicans time to send their own Bill to him like he pretended he wanted to happen.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Report: Pres. Obama to announce immigration order on Friday in Las Vegas | Twitchy


As usual, the media won't focus on whatever illegal action he takes... but "What does the GOP think?"

If the next President is Republican, they can and should immediately retract every Obama EO.

 

[T.Lex]

If the next President is Republican, they can and should immediately retract every Obama EO.

Wow. That's quite a broad brush!

Keep in mind, there are many run-of-the-mill EOs that cover things like inter-agency cooperation and things like that. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Here's another thought - let's assume the president has the authority to do what Obama is expected to do (which, IMHO, is a pretty safe assumption). A conservative president could take similar actions: pardons to all those who have committed NFA crimes, order non-prosecution of federal gun-possession crimes (including felon-in-possession laws, if he (or she) were feeling ballsy), etc.

The immigration amnesty move would be fairly unprecedented, but could provide the precedent for a principled president. If there ever is one. (That is a much riskier assumption.)

 

[pudly]

The immigration amnesty move would be fairly unprecedented, but could provide the precedent for a principled president. If there ever is one. (That is a much riskier assumption.)

Far better to assume this doesn't lead to "good" abuses of the Constitution and instead slap Obama silly as a warning to future presidents.

 

[T.Lex]

Far better to assume this doesn't lead to "good" abuses of the Constitution and instead slap Obama silly as a warning to future presidents.

How would such a slap work? A lawsuit? Congress v. President, and the resulting constitutional crisis decided by the Supreme Court?

Ok, but be prepared to lose. The slap could turn into a high-five.

Or go the functional route - cut the purse strings to the executive office? The resulting financial crisis would be politically radioactive.

Please do not misunderstand. This is almost certainly the action of a rogue president (or "rouge" as described in a Breitbart article). But, that does not make the action itself void, or even illegitimate. It is probably somewhere on the spectrum around the Iran-Contra level of executive action.

 

[pudly]

The slap would be both defunding anything related to amnesty and impeachment. There is a strong leg to stand on because (although his president has refused to enforce existing laws), Congress has the right to expect that the president will not outright violate existing laws passed by the standard legislative process. If they allow this to stand, they may as well all quit because no law they helped pass needs to be followed.

 

[T.Lex]

The slap would be both defunding anything related to amnesty and impeachment. There is a strong leg to stand on because (although his president has refused to enforce existing laws), Congress has the right to expect that the president will not outright violate existing laws passed by the standard legislative process. If they allow this to stand, they may as well all quit because no law they helped pass needs to be followed.

Ok.
1) Defunding amnesty - that would be tricky. How do you defund the lack of action? In other words, any amnesty would basically be saying, "We won't deport/prosecute anyone." Do you then defund deportation/prosecution? Do you defund processing of applications for permanent residency? I am open to being shown a way for this to be effective, I just don't think there is such a way.

2) Impeachment - I understand this. And, I think he deserves it for more than one reason. But, he will already be a 2-year lame duck. They may have a majority, but they don't have enough votes to accomplish it, so it won't work. The only benefit to the exercise would be the resulting gridlock. It'd be hard for them to F up anything else while spinning their wheels.

From what I can tell, there are no good answers.

 

[OakRiver]

Ok.
1) Defunding amnesty - that would be tricky. How do you defund the lack of action? In other words, any amnesty would basically be saying, "We won't deport/prosecute anyone." Do you then defund deportation/prosecution? Do you defund processing of applications for permanent residency? I am open to being shown a way for this to be effective, I just don't think there is such a way.

Simple. The amnesty requires some application to Homeland Security to normalize the status of the illegal alien, such as the Deferred Action program. Prevent any funds going to this endeavor and you have defunded it. No applications can be processed, no one can be granted amnesty.

2) Impeachment - I understand this. And, I think he deserves it for more than one reason. But, he will already be a 2-year lame duck. They may have a majority, but they don't have enough votes to accomplish it, so it won't work. The only benefit to the exercise would be the resulting gridlock. It'd be hard for them to F up anything else while spinning their wheels.

From what I can tell, there are no good answers.

Impeachment would likely fire up the Democrat's base, which is what they want. The Democrats raised this before the last election to try and poison the well, now Obama's actions (taking three not button issues almost immediately after the Mid-Terms and giving the GOP a one finger salute over them) has been designed to provoke confrontation.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Impeachment would likely fire up the Democrat's base, which is what they want.

Couple questions here.

I was too young in the Clinton/Bush days, but how did Bush win after the Clinton impeachment fiasco? Were the people jointly behind pushing him out? Things feel far more divisive today than back then, from what I could perceive. Granted, social media has made politics feel more extreme.