States sue to rein in Obama's illegal amnesty

[BluesLegend]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Exactly ... All bark no bite = repukes

Like nutless libtards.

 

[Care4all]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

 

[S.J.]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"States sue to rein in Obama's illegal amnesty"

Which is idiocy given the fact the president's EO isn't 'amnesty.'

The lawsuit is completely devoid of merit, as immigration is the sole purview of the Federal government:

'The Obama administration says prosecutorial discretion gives the president the power to take such action, and reiterated that Wednesday.

“The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and we are confident that the president’s executive actions are well within his legal authorities,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said in an email.'

17 states sue to stop Obama apos s immigration plan - LA Times

The president's order is perfectly Constitutional as determined by the Supreme Court and as authorized by Congress:

'In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999), the Supreme Court affirmed that “in the deportation process, [a]t each stage the Executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor, and at the time [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)] was enacted the INS had been engaging in a regular practice (known as “deferred action”) of exercising that discretion for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience…. many provisions of the IIRIRA are aimed at protecting the Executive’s discretion from the courts–indeed, that can fairly be said to be the theme of the legislation.”

These administrative and court decisions have clear basis in legislation. As noted by the Court inReno, “8 U. S. C. § 1252(g)… restricts judicial review of the Attorney General’s ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act.’” Moreover, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d) under “Deportable Aliens” explicitly discusses “the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to grant a stay of removal or deportation in any case not described in this subsection,” meaning that Congress authorized deportation deferrals.'

President Obama s Deportation Deferral Order Is Legal The Law

 

[Care4all]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two (previous) presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were NOT covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Here's a timeline...:

—1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed.
(As you can see, Congress did not agree on the reform so could not pass a bill to cover these illegal family members that Reagan told INS to delay deportation on.)

Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.
Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.
(Once again, the House purposely failed to act on the Senate Bill that was passed to correct the situation)

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy.

Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.
(finally, after 3 1/2 years with Reagan's executive action and 9 months after President Bush's executive action with INS, congress passed immigration reform and put Reagan's and Bush's executive actions with INS in to their immigration reform bill and passed it in both the house and senate)

2 GOP presidents acted unilaterally on immigration

I don't see any actions that Obama took, that have not been taken previously by other presidents...these presidents before Obama were never challenged in court, nor did congress threaten a gvt shut down, or threaten to impeach reagan or bush1, so it appears to be within the realms of the executive, if you go by precedence or history....?

 

[Jroc]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two (previous) presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were NOT covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Here's a timeline...:

—1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed.
(As you can see, Congress did not agree on the reform so could not pass a bill to cover these illegal family members that Reagan told INS to delay deportation on.)

Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.
Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.
(Once again, the House purposely failed to act on the Senate Bill that was passed to correct the situation)

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy.

Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.
(finally, after 3 1/2 years with Reagan's executive action and 9 months after President Bush's executive action with INS, congress passed immigration reform and put Reagan's and Bush's executive actions with INS in to their immigration reform bill and passed it in both the house and senate)

2 GOP presidents acted unilaterally on immigration

I don't see any actions that Obama took, that have not been taken previously by other presidents...these presidents before Obama were never challenged in court, nor did congress threaten a gvt shut down, or threaten to impeach reagan or bush1, so it appears to be within the realms of the executive, if you go by precedence or history....?

An honest liberal....

 

[Care4all]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two (previous) presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were NOT covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Here's a timeline...:

—1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed.
(As you can see, Congress did not agree on the reform so could not pass a bill to cover these illegal family members that Reagan told INS to delay deportation on.)

Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.
Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.
(Once again, the House purposely failed to act on the Senate Bill that was passed to correct the situation)

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy.

Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.
(finally, after 3 1/2 years with Reagan's executive action and 9 months after President Bush's executive action with INS, congress passed immigration reform and put Reagan's and Bush's executive actions with INS in to their immigration reform bill and passed it in both the house and senate)

2 GOP presidents acted unilaterally on immigration

I don't see any actions that Obama took, that have not been taken previously by other presidents...these presidents before Obama were never challenged in court, nor did congress threaten a gvt shut down, or threaten to impeach reagan or bush1, so it appears to be within the realms of the executive, if you go by precedence or history....?

An honest liberal....

was he also an honest liberal when he was saying the same things about Pres gw bush's executive orders and actions?

well, in the video Turley was speculating with Megan because Obama had not given his speech on immigration yet... and he was hired by the GOP to represent them in his Obama care suit, so IT IS important for him to spin this situation in favor or the same view to support his stance in the Ocare law suit....

But if Turley is correct in his speculation, then the courts will rule in his favor and Bush and Reagan's executive orders on immigration were wrong as well...

time will tell....

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law

I snipped you're reply for the hilarity factor. lmao

 

[S.J.]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He'll ignore them. He thinks he's above the law.

Pftt

He doesn't think it, he knows it. Get with the program man

 

[S.J.]

He'll ignore them. He thinks he's above the law.

Pftt

He doesn't think it, he knows it. Get with the program man

That remains to be seen but so far it appears you are right.We'll have to see if the Republicans seize the opportunity they've been given to stop the bastard.

 

[hadit]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

No, it's just that some of us aren't crippled with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and also have a basic understanding of how the separation of powers works in our government. Just because I don't like Obama's actions does not make it unconstitutional.

Go ahead I can't wait for you to explain why Obama, a supposed Constitutional law professor said 20+ times that it would not be legal for him to do what he has now just done so have at it. Well?

This is an interesting situation. Was the "Constitutional scholar" right when he said he did NOT have the authority to do what he did, and thus what he did was unconstitutional, or was the "Constitutional scholar" WRONG when he said that and thus not much of a "Constitutional scholar", since in question is such a basic matter of Constitutional limits on presidential power?

 

[hadit]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

When your strongest defense is "Well, somebody else that I hate a whole lot did something similar", you don't have a good defense. I find it interesting that those who really hate Reagan and Bush hold them up as exemplars of good presidential behavior and want to apply them to Obama.

 

[Care4all]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

When your strongest defense is "Well, somebody else that I hate a whole lot did something similar", you don't have a good defense. I find it interesting that those who really hate Reagan and Bush hold them up as exemplars of good presidential behavior and want to apply them to Obama.

I didn't hate Reagan or Bush 1, or Bush 2, if that matters....nor did I hate Obama, even though I did not vote for him.....twice.

so your strawman isn't working on me.

YOU, in your own words, explain to me why the order by Reagan and 3 yrs later by Bush1, for INS to delay deportation and give authorization to work, the illegal spouses and illegal children who did not qualify for Amnesty through the 1986 Immigration Act created by Congress, is different than what this President has done.

NEWSFLASH

It isn't different enough to say one was legal and one was not.

Reagan, Bush, Obama

-all of these presidents, used their discretion, and delayed deportation of ILLEGALS not granted amnesty by Congress...yes, those given deportation protection by Reagan and Bush, also were for illegals that did not qualify for amnesty via Congress's 1986 law....


If it is determined to not be within this President's power, then it was not with Reagan's or Bush1's power either....becauseeeeeeeeeeee, it was the virtual same executive action and power.

Delayed deportation protection, is NOT the suspension of deportation...only delayed deportation...which is putting others that also are to be deported like gangsters and felons AHEAD of those that are parents of legal American citizen minors etc, only congress can suspend deportation or give amnesty.

When there are 11 million illegals to deport, and the funding for deportation by Congress is only enough to cover deporting 400 k illegals a year, then according to our laws, it is within the president's power to prioritize INS's deportation actions.

so Obama's argument is, that he is not giving Amnesty to illegals, he is prioritizing whom the INS concentrates on deporting with the limited funds to do the job provided to the agency.

It would take 27.5 YEARS with the money INS is being provided by Congress to deport all 11 million illegals....thus our President's need, as OVERSEER of ALL gvt agencies per the LAW OF THE LAND, to have this agency prioritize who they focus on deporting....within the LAW.

If these people were given permanent amnesty by the President, then that WOULD be changing the law, but delayed deportation is not permanent, so it does not break our immigration law, it is just delaying it....due to the shortage of money given to INS to deport all 11 million illegals which would take 27.5 years to do......

....other illegals, who are a threat to our Nation and Felons, take top priority.

I think this is a strong argument....we'll see what the courts determine, I suppose.

ALSO, congress CAN, in one simple vote, take away this responsibility of the president to prioritize if they renege the law in the 1940's that gave the President the power to do such....or congress could pass their own immigration reform including this prioritizing or taking it away....

They were NOT specific in the Immigration laws that they passed previously, in who got to be deported first, or second or third....if money is short to accomplish the job, they left this up to the President to decide, they can pass a law that is more specific and take away the president's discretion on how to execute the law....under the funding shortage to accomplish the law.

 

[BluesLegend]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

No, it's just that some of us aren't crippled with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and also have a basic understanding of how the separation of powers works in our government. Just because I don't like Obama's actions does not make it unconstitutional.

Go ahead I can't wait for you to explain why Obama, a supposed Constitutional law professor said 20+ times that it would not be legal for him to do what he has now just done so have at it. Well?

This is an interesting situation. Was the "Constitutional scholar" right when he said he did NOT have the authority to do what he did, and thus what he did was unconstitutional, or was the "Constitutional scholar" WRONG when he said that and thus not much of a "Constitutional scholar", since in question is such a basic matter of Constitutional limits on presidential power?

Neither bodes well for him does it.

 

[g5000]

I posted here several times that states would take the lead in overturning Obama's illegal executive order. Looks like I was right. Again.
The First Big Legal Challenge to Obama s Immigration Directive - Yahoo News

You forgot to predict they will lose.

 

[g5000]

I wonder if those states will whine about the "damages" being caused by illegal immigrants when the GOP Congress passes amnesty.

Will they sue? How about a prediction for that one, Rabbi?

 

[rightwinger]

I wonder if those states will whine about the "damages" being caused by illegal immigrants when the GOP Congress passes amnesty.

Will they sue? How about a prediction for that one, Rabbi?

The GOP Congress is incapable of doing anything. The only amnesty they can agree on is bigger fences

 

[SwimExpert]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

No, it's just that some of us aren't crippled with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and also have a basic understanding of how the separation of powers works in our government. Just because I don't like Obama's actions does not make it unconstitutional.

Go ahead I can't wait for you to explain why Obama, a supposed Constitutional law professor said 20+ times that it would not be legal for him to do what he has now just done so have at it. Well?

I really don't give a shit, because unlike you ODS loons I realize that this is not about Obama. Those in the Republican party who are obsessed with making Obama look bad are wasting time, harming the country and the party all at the same time.

Obama's EO is legal. The correct and proper response from Congress and the GOP is LEGISLATIVE ACTION, not whiny bullshit panty wetting.