Obama immigration executive order watch party

[Valjean]

All this quibbling over details. What does law have to do with government, anyway? Government does what it wants, always has. Every administration violates treaties, policies, international law, federal law, &c. In comparison to the illegal wars, invasions, coups and puppet governments we've installed, this furor over helping productive residents escape a life of fear, poverty and exploitation seems petty and self-serving.

For the past year and a half, the reform bill Boenner and the Republicans are complaining the autocratic president refuses to work with them on has been sitting on Boenner's desk, ready to be passed.

“It is time for the Congress of the United States to deal with a very difficult issue in our society ...it’s just time to deal with it.” -- John Boenner, Speaker of the House

In 2013 the Senate passed an immigration overhaul bill with a huge 68 votes. It then went to the House, where it would have passed, but Boenner, who decides which bills will be presented for consideration, caved to the minority of radical hard liners and tabled it.

So who is the obstructionist, who the autocrat?
The bill the Republicans complain Obama refuses to work with them on has been sitting right there on Boenner's desk for a year and a half.

 

[dismal]

Executive decrees are not something we do in place of legislation. The President's power to do things comes from legislation.

Unless the legislature is an ineffectual mess that can't tell it's ass from a hole in the ground. When the system is broken, you can't blame people for acting as if they had a broken system that's not working as it was designed.

This idea is nowhere in the constitution. What is in there is that the legislature must pass a law for there to be a law. This is how the system was designed. There was never an idea that a president should get what whatever he wants and a congress that does not give it to him may be declared "broken".

If the people thought the congress was broken there is a remedy called "elections". And you know what? We just had one. I don't think it went Obama's way.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Unless the legislature is an ineffectual mess that can't tell it's ass from a hole in the ground. When the system is broken, you can't blame people for acting as if they had a broken system that's not working as it was designed.

This idea is nowhere in the constitution. What is in there is that the legislature must pass a law for there to be a law. This is how the system was designed. There was never an idea that a president should get what whatever he wants and a congress that does not give it to him may be declared "broken".

If the people thought the congress was broken there is a remedy called "elections". And you know what? We just had one. I don't think it went Obama's way.

Dude, you may like to shit on your country's constitution and that's your right as a free citizen, but Obama has a duty as the President to uphold it. Perhaps you can show me what section of that vaunted document states that elections of the legislative branch have any effect at all on the executive branch? The Founding Fathers (PBUT) specifically designed a system which separates the branches of government and doesn't make one subservient to the what happens in another.

Maybe your idea of how a government should work would be fine in China, but we're talking about America here.

 

[Valjean]

But presidents have always acted unilaterally. Only the right wing complains about it, and Obama's done it less than any president in the past 50 years.

The American people want immigration reform. Isn't it the role of government to reflect the will of the people?
Congress is broken. The US has become an oligarchy. You'd expect congress and the people to be up in arms over this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

[dismal]

This idea is nowhere in the constitution. What is in there is that the legislature must pass a law for there to be a law. This is how the system was designed. There was never an idea that a president should get what whatever he wants and a congress that does not give it to him may be declared "broken".

If the people thought the congress was broken there is a remedy called "elections". And you know what? We just had one. I don't think it went Obama's way.

Dude, you may like to shit on your country's constitution and that's your right as a free citizen, but Obama has a duty as the President to uphold it. Perhaps you can show me what section of that vaunted document states that elections of the legislative branch have any effect at all on the executive branch? The Founding Fathers (PBUT) specifically designed a system which separates the branches of government and doesn't make one subservient to the what happens in another.

Maybe your idea of how a government should work would be fine in China, but we're talking about America here.

wat

 

[KeepTalking]

I have read the thread and listened to the sound bites.

Maybe these will help:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/obamas-immigration-amnesia/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sing-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/

Probably not.

 

[dismal]

Maybe these will help:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/obamas-immigration-amnesia/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sing-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/

Probably not.

Yes, probably not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Dude, you may like to shit on your country's constitution and that's your right as a free citizen, but Obama has a duty as the President to uphold it. Perhaps you can show me what section of that vaunted document states that elections of the legislative branch have any effect at all on the executive branch? The Founding Fathers (PBUT) specifically designed a system which separates the branches of government and doesn't make one subservient to the what happens in another.

Maybe your idea of how a government should work would be fine in China, but we're talking about America here.

wat

I'm explaining why you hate America and want the terrorists to win.

 

[KeepTalking]

Probably not.

Yes, probably not.

Good, we agree on something. Now if you can address the substance of my previous post, that would be great.

 

[dismal]

Yes, probably not.

Good, we agree on something. Now if you can address the substance of my previous post, that would be great.

The substance of "Probably not."?

 

[ImGod]

If congress would spend as much time in their chambers discussing immigration as they do outside their chambers discussing immigration, they may actually pass legislation regarding immigration.

Someday they may realize they have the ability to do something other than talk.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If congress would spend as much time in their chambers discussing immigration as they do outside their chambers discussing immigration, they may actually pass legislation regarding immigration.

Someday they may realize they have the ability to do something other than talk.

QFTFFS!

It is incredible all the blabbing the Republicans have done about illegal immigration... yet have seemingly been incapable of acting on it in Congress. And this is ignoring the problem that "illegal immigration" is one of America's lesser problems, yet it keeps getting propped to the top by so many.

Allegedly it costs the US $110 billion a year total. $29 billion for the Feds, $30 billion for CA and NY combined. So really, we are talking peanuts here, other than the issue of rights, labor abuse, etc... But people rail on about the destruction it is doing to our nation as if the nation has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants, say like Jordan who has taken in so many Syrian refugees.

 

[maxparrish]

But presidents have always acted unilaterally. Only the right wing complains about it, and Obama's done it less than any president in the past 50 years.

The American people want immigration reform. Isn't it the role of government to reflect the will of the people?
Congress is broken. The US has become an oligarchy. You'd expect congress and the people to be up in arms over this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

This issue is not when Presidents act unilaterally within their constitutional powers, the issue is when Presidents ignore the Constitution, fail to execute laws, and usurp the function and power of Congress. Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment because he exceeded his authority in his obstruction of justice in his cover up of a burglary. Given Obama's arrogant refusal to faithfully execute many laws, including immigration law, Obama should also be under threat of impeachment.

And its nice to see we now agree, the American people are opposed to Obama's recent actions. So now that you know that, I am sure you feel compelled to side with the people, and not Obama and "the oligarchy". Right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But presidents have always acted unilaterally. Only the right wing complains about it, and Obama's done it less than any president in the past 50 years.

The American people want immigration reform. Isn't it the role of government to reflect the will of the people?
Congress is broken. The US has become an oligarchy. You'd expect congress and the people to be up in arms over this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

This issue is not when Presidents act unilaterally within their constitutional powers, the issue is when Presidents ignore the Constitution, fail to execute laws, and usurp the function and power of Congress. Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment because he exceeded his authority in his obstruction of justice in his cover up of a burglary. Given Obama's arrogant refusal to faithfully execute many laws, including immigration law, Obama should also be under threat of impeachment.

And its nice to see we now agree, the American people are opposed to Obama's recent actions. So now that you know that, I am sure you feel compelled to side with the people, and not Obama and "the oligarchy". Right?

Agreed fully!

The W Admin leaked the identity of a NOC-List CIA Agent, that was completely legal. One guy went to jail simply because he lied to investigators. So that was Constitutional.

The W Admin exaggerated (kindly put) evidence of the threat of attacks from Iraq, which in conjunction with a poorly run occupation, led to the maiming or death of 10,000 US Troops, and countless Iraqis. But really that is legal because they really thought they were right.

All those Executive Orders and Signing Statements by W, completely Constitutional...ish.

When W promised not to touch the Social Security surplus and then didn't in order to finance a deficit tax cut, completely Constitutional!

 

[maxparrish]

This issue is not when Presidents act unilaterally within their constitutional powers, the issue is when Presidents ignore the Constitution, fail to execute laws, and usurp the function and power of Congress. Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment because he exceeded his authority in his obstruction of justice in his cover up of a burglary. Given Obama's arrogant refusal to faithfully execute many laws, including immigration law, Obama should also be under threat of impeachment.

And its nice to see we now agree, the American people are opposed to Obama's recent actions. So now that you know that, I am sure you feel compelled to side with the people, and not Obama and "the oligarchy". Right?

Agreed fully!

The W Admin leaked the identity of a NOC-List CIA Agent, that was completely legal. One guy went to jail simply because he lied to investigators. So that was Constitutional.

The W Admin exaggerated (kindly put) evidence of the threat of attacks from Iraq, which in conjunction with a poorly run occupation, led to the maiming or death of 10,000 US Troops, and countless Iraqis. But really that is legal because they really thought they were right.

All those Executive Orders and Signing Statements by W, completely Constitutional...ish.

When W promised not to touch the Social Security surplus and then didn't in order to finance a deficit tax cut, completely Constitutional!

Oh gee, another 'what about Bush' red herring?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Oh gee, another 'what about Bush' red herring precedent?

FIFY

 

[maxparrish]

Oh gee, another 'what about Bush' red herring precedent?

FIFY

Alleged prior violations of the law do not serve as precedents in American jurisprudence, at best they serve as reminders that the law was and is once again being corrupted.

 

[bilby]

FIFY

Alleged violations of the law do not serve as precedents, they serve as reminders that the law was and is being corrupted.

So either we can put your current interest in this down to purely partisan motives; Or you can direct us to the record of your arguments against the Bush administration when he was doing this...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Don't enforce immigration laws if it would do more harm than good.

If congress would spend as much time in their chambers discussing immigration as they do outside their chambers discussing immigration, they may actually pass legislation regarding immigration.

Someday they may realize they have the ability to do something other than talk.

Why do anything?

The status quo is probably better than anything the Congress might do.

The whole issue has no practical importance except as a topic for babbling and breast-beating.

The simple bottom-line truth is: We need the cheap labor, and if the law were enforced (deport the illegals and crack down on employers), we'd all be made worse off.

Obama can't say this, because it would offend his Left-wing pro-labor supporters.

Considering the alternatives, the status quo is serving us pretty well. The only change needed is to leave the workers alone, and the employers. So don't do any raids at worksites, don't deport workers, and don't enforce any sanctions against employers.

It's not necessary to enforce all the immigration laws. Any enforcement against the ones working here illegally, such as disrupting companies that hire them, would only make us worse off.

 

[maxparrish]

Alleged violations of the law do not serve as precedents, they serve as reminders that the law was and is being corrupted.

So either we can put your current interest in this down to purely partisan motives; Or you can direct us to the record of your arguments against the Bush administration when he was doing this...

My motivations are irrelevant. You actually are trying to attack a poster's character (his motives) rather attacking his argument? Sorry bilby, that tired old ad hom dodge was discredited at FRDB many years ago.